George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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 the Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act. This legislation will improve the National Wildlife Refuge System because it clearly reaffirms President Roosevelt's original intent in establishing our first wildlife refuge in 1903--to conserve fish and wildlife for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Why is it necessary to reaffirm our commitment to the only system of public lands dedicated to wildlife conservation? Because legislation recently introduced in the House would fundamentally alter the purpose and undermine the conservation mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the last Congress, a vote against a very similar bill, H.R. 1675, was counted by the nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters as one of the key environmental votes of 1996. H.R. 511, which was recently introduced by the chairman of the Resources Committee, would undermine wildlife conservation on our refuges by elevating hunting, trapping, and other forms of recreation to a purpose of the system coequal to conservation. But do not think that this is a purely philosophical debate about whether hunting should be a purpose of the refuge system, because H.R. 511 would also restrict the ability of the wildlife management professionals at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service properly to manage recreational activities. Hunting, if properly controlled, in an important tool in the kit of the wildlife manager. However, if not managed properly, it can rapidly deplete wildlife populations. The Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act, on the other hand, reaffirms conservation as the purpose of the refugee system and establishes an objective process for evaluating whether recreational activities are compatible with wildlife conservation. It recognizes wildlife dependent recreation, including wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing, as priority uses of the system, but ensures that they are subordinate to conservation goals. While the National Wildlife Refuge System provides world class opportunities for hunting and other outdoor recreation, which I support, the approach taken in H.R. 511 is dead wrong. The overwhelming majority of visitors to our wildlife refuges come not to hunt or trap, but to observe and enjoy nature in other ways. Yet those who do wish to hunt and fish enjoy broad access to refuge lands; in fact, over half of all refuges--comprising more than 90 percent of the system's acreage-- already permit these recreational uses. The Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act provides an effective blueprint to guide the refuge system into the 21st century. This bill ensures that all Americans will continue to get a fair return on their investment in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is supported by a number of major conservation organizations, including the National Audubon Society, the Wildlife Society, Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In contrast, H.R. 511 is a solution in search of a problem, and that solution will undermine 94 years of fish and wildlife conservation. In 1903, President Roosevelt had the foresight to set aside a place-- a small place--where wildlife came first. Let us maintain a place in our increasingly crowded world where there is room for people, but where wildlife comes first. That place is the National Wildlife Refuge System and we should keep it that way. Support the Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when most of us think of Pacific islands, we usually think of a tropical paradise with brightly colored fish swimming in turquoise waters while palm fronds rustle overhead in a warm gentle breeze. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you that there is trouble in paradise because there are some people that see a tropical island and think of nuclear dump sites. As we struggle with the legacy of the cold war and the wastes generated by it, those that trade in these wastes have increasingly looked at isolated atolls, with few if any constituents to object, as likely nuclear dump sites. Several years ago, there was a proposal to store radioactive waste in the Marshall Islands. Fortunately, the Marshallese Government eventually thought better of it and that proposed died. Last year, a group calling itself U.S. Nuclear Fuels was making the rounds in Washington, DC, to drum up support for a proposal to create a nuclear dump site on Palmyra Island, a private owned island in U.S. territory. This proposal prompted the introduction of legislation in both Houses of Congress prohibiting the Federal Government from siting a nuclear waste storage facility outside the 50 States. Now, another group, Nuclear Disarmament Services, Inc., is circulating legislation to authorize the siting of a nuclear dump site on either Palmyra or Wake Island, a U.S. possession. In fact, there is a symposium occurring today at Georgetown University, sponsored by U.S. Nuclear Fuels, to discuss this proposal. What do all these crazy ideas have in common? One man, Alex Copeson, has been the driving force behind all these proposals and a principal in these companies. And this is not Mr. Copeson's first foray into the waste trade. In the early 1990's, he was the pitch man for a scheme to dump toxic waste on the sea floor, even though this is prohibited under U.S. and international law. Why does Mr. Copeson think that we should store nuclear waste on Pacific islands? An article in the March edition of Outside magazine offers some insights. Referring to the Marshallese Government and the Bikini Islanders, Mr. Copeson is quoted as saying, ``They're all scam artists banging the tin cup in front of the white man. They'd open a whorehouse and sell their daughters and grandmothers for a dollar. They've never lived so good since that bomb, the fat lazy [expletive]. All they want to do is go gambling, drinking, and whoring in the United States. The only contribution they could make to the world is to give someone their islands [for waste] and take a hike--be an absentee landlord for world peace.'' Given Mr. Copeson's views of the people of the tropical Pacific and his insensitivity to the economic, social, and environmental injuries inflicted on them by above-ground nuclear testing, it is no wonder that he thinks that we should continue to dump radioactivity in their back yard. And that brings up the most crucial point. Even if one thought that shipping nuclear waste thousands of miles across the stormy Pacific Ocean to store it on geologically unstable coral or volcanic islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean's typhoon belt was a good idea scientifically, how could one justify inflicting further nuclear contamination on the people of the Pacific territories? In furtherance of our cold war, many of the people of the Pacific islands have lost not only their traditional way of life, but in some cases their home islands have been rendered uninhabitable. We need to stop this madness in its tracks. That is why Mr. Abercrombie and I are introducing a resolution today that expresses the sense of Congress that we will not transport to or store nuclear waste on any U.S. territory or possession. Federal law already forbids the siting of a nuclear waste storage facility in U.S. territories or possessions without the express authorization of Congress and passing this resolution will send a clear signal that we do not intend to do so. We need to let the international waste merchants know that the people of the Pacific islands have suffered enough and that we will not insult them further by forcing them to be the caretakers of the nuclear legacy of the cold war. I recognize that this is a terrible problem, but Pacific islanders did not start the cold war, and they should not be asked to finish it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this year's budget debate promises another round of arguments over cutting programs and services to American citizens in order to balance the Federal budget. In that debate, it is time to take a serious look at the wasteful practices that drain the Treasury while subsidizing the developers of natural resources from the public lands. Today I am introducing a bill, the Public Resources Deficit Reduction Act, that will terminate the very expensive subsidies that taxpayers have long provided to many of the nation's natural resource developers and require, instead, that taxpayers receive the fair market value of the public's resources. While we often disagree about the precise way to allocate limited Federal resources, I believe we should all be able to agree that we should not waste billions of dollars in taxpayers' money and resources. Yet our natural resources policies, often formulated decades ago when it was necessary to induce people to settle the West, still give away billions of dollars each year in subsidies to mining conglomerates, timber barons and argibusinesses. The taxpayers' largesse benefits some of the wealthiest ranchers and farm operators in the United States, while subsidizing environmental damage that the taxpayers eventually pay to clean up as well. This bill has a very simple goal: Companies and individuals who use natural resources from public lands--minerals, timber, water, hydropower and forage for grazing--would pay fair market value for those resources. In order to provide a transition period, it exempts all existing contracts and phases fair market pricing in over 5 years. But after 5 more years of taxpayer subsidies, this bill asks natural resource developers to pay the taxpayers what their assets are worth. The bill also contains a number of specific provisions to ensure that particular programs are altered to eliminate unfair subsidies. It would amend the 1872 mining law to require that the taxpayers receive a fair royalty for gold and silver mined on public lands. It would alter programs in the national parks to ensure that the public receives a fair share of the profits made by the concessionaires. It would set standards for eliminating below-cost timber sales and charging fair market value for grazing and the use of utility rights-of-way across public land. It would move the income from timber and grazing programs on-budget, so that the receipts are accounted for in annual budgeting. Another area addressed by this bill is the inconsistency of Federal irrigation and farm support policies, which often contradict one another or provide enormous combined subsidies. To address these inconsistencies, the bill would eliminate Federal irrigation subsidies to farmers already receiving payments under the Agricultural Market Transition Act. It also would require that the irrigation subsidies be counted into the cap on farm subsidies. Mr. Speaker, we have asked all of our citizens to accept some cuts in Federal programs in order to balance the budget. We told welfare recipients their aid would end after 5 years. This bill would tell our citizens that we can be responsible stewards of the assets they have entrusted to us, and that we will not longer demand that they tolerate wasteful subsidy programs. In the last Congress, this legislation was introduced with dozens of co-sponsors, including Members of both political parties. It was not even accorded a hearing by the Committee on Resources. The last Congress utterly failed to reform any of the major resource subsidy programs that currently apply to billions of dollars in public resources. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford such indifference again in the 105th Congress. We cannot afford environmental indifference to the consequences of subsidized resource development and usage. And we cannot afford the fiscal burden of maintaining, on the eve of the 21st century, subsidy programs born at the end of the 19th century.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the San Francisco Bay Shipping and Fisheries Enhancement Act. This legislation will protect both the economy and the environment of the San Francisco Bay area by taking preventive action to reduce the chances of a catastrophic oil spill in this irreplaceable bay. On October 28, 1996, diesel fuel was accidentally released from a maritime administration ship in dry dock in San Francisco. Only about 8,000 gallons of oil entered the water but, due to weather and other factors, even this small spill got out from under the control of the Federal and State officials charged with containing and cleaning up oil spills. As bay area residents watched, the oil spread outside the Golden Gate and north of the San Rafael Bridge. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the cost of cleanup has exceeded $10 million, rivaling the $14 million cleanup of the much larger spill at Shell's Martinez refinery in 1988. The October spill was only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, yet Valdez-sized tankers laden with millions of gallons of crude oil make dozens of trips into the bay each year. In fact, the Valdez was bound for San Francisco when it ran aground in 1989. If a small spill like the one that occurred in October could cause this much damage, a Valdez-size spill would surely devastate the bay area, both economically and environmentally, for decades. We got lucky in October. We got a wake up call the caused only modest damage. Next time we may not be so lucky. After a spill, we can send in all the king's horses and all the king's men, but they still can't put Humpty Dumpty back together. When dealing with oil spills, we need to heed the old adage--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The San Francisco Bay Shipping and Fisheries Enhancement Act--Bay SAFE--will provide that ounce of prevention by authorizing the removal of underwater rocks in San Francisco Bay that pose a danger to deep draft vessels, like oil tankers. Near Alcatraz, there are number of rock reefs lying less than 40 feet below the surface. The Coast Guard considers these rocks to be hazards to navigation and recommends their removal. In 1992, the San Francisco Bay Harbor Safety Committee, in its harbor safety plan, recommended that the rocks be removed to a depth of 55 feet below the low tide line. The main hazard that these rocks present is to tankers, which increasingly have drafts in excess of 45 feet. Bay SAFE directs the Army Corps of Engineers to lower these so that even the deepest draft tankers will not be endangered. After rock hazards are removed, Bay SAFE directs the Coast Guard to reroute vessel traffic to minimize the risk of an oil spill. At a minimum, the Bay SAFE navigation project will give the Coast Guard a much wider area through which to move deep draft vessels, thereby decreasing vessel traffic congestion and the risk of head on collisions. I am confident that the Coast Guard, working the local community, can come up with a traffic separation scheme that expedites shipping and enhances environmental protection. I am aware that there are environmental concerns about removing these rocks. That is why Bay SAFE directs the Army Corps to design this project to minimize the impact on the environment and fisheries. The bill also provides for mitigation of any unavoidable damage. But in weighing the merits of this project, we must measure the long-term benefits against the short-term costs. According to the maritime exchange, which tracks shipping traffic in San Francisco Bay, over 800 tankers entered the bay last year, carrying hundreds of millions--if not billions--of gallons of oil and other hazardous substances. Nearly one-quarter of these tankers are large enough to strike the submerged rocks near Alcatraz. If one small oil spill caused $10 million in damage, how many billions of dollars in damage to fisheries and wildlife would be caused by a major spill? If this project avoids even one modest oil spill, I believe it will have been worth the minor disruption to the marine environment caused by its construction. San Francisco Bay is an invaluable natural and economic resource to the bay area and to the entire Nation. In the coming months, I will be taking every opportunity to increase protection of the bay area from oil or hazardous substance spills. As stated in a February 25 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, Bay SAFE is ``a prudent move forward''. It is the least we can do to protect our bay. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, like so many of my other colleagues, I am deeply distressed that we continue to live in a country as wealthy as the United States of America and we continue to have 10 million of our children without health coverage, 1 in 7 children in this Nation with no health insurance. Tragically, 9 out of 10 of these children live in families with working parents, but they earn too little to provide health insurance, not only for themselves but in many instances for their children. There was a time 10 years ago when children were covered by employers, when children were the responsibility of families working. But today as we see a downsizing of jobs, a downsizing of benefits, a downsizing of hours, employers are walking away from families in terms of health insurance, and they are certainly walking away from the children in those families that need health insurance. Since we debated health insurance issues, a million more children in this country are without that health insurance. Mr. Speaker, we did not solve the health insurance crisis in this country by failing to deal with it. We owe the children of America a much better due.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, many of this Nation's governors are amazing. For the last 2 years they have been coming to Washington and telling anyone who would listen that they could reform the welfare system with one hand behind their back. They said they could do more for less, better than the Federal Government ever thought it could. They went from Meet the Press, to committee hearings, to Nightline, saying to whoever would listen that they were the only ones who knew how to reform the system and had the courage to make the tough decisions. When asked about legal immigrants and about moving people to work, about a safety net for children, their answer was always the same: Leave it to us. The States are the great laboratories of the 1990's. Well, the ink is barely dry on the Welfare Reform Act and now the Governors are back here whining about the welfare bill that they designed. Why do these Governors remind me of Riddick Bowe? They have spent less time living with the welfare reform law than Riddick Bowe did with the U.S. Marines. Riddick said his problem was the lack of flexibility. The Governors are suggesting that their problem is too much flexibility. They are responsible for too much of the welfare caseload. Excuse me, we gave them the block grant that they asked for, calculated on the high welfare years of 1994. Many are already taking credit, along with the President, for causing the number of welfare recipients to drop by over 2 million. So why do they not take some of the savings and help provide for legal immigrants, to put some people to work, provide job training and child care for those single mothers who want to go to work? Rather than doing that, they are back to Washington asking for a Federal bailout. Who do they think we are: The tax collectors for the State welfare state? The Governors have a responsibility to do what they have asked for the authority to do, to move people from welfare to work and to do it now. It means education, job training, child care, and health care in support of those people who want to go to work. As problems occur, after all the sectors have made a good faith effort, then Congress can consider suggestions for change. But now they have the revenue in the first few years to carry out welfare reform if the economy stays healthy. They should follow the lead of the President and get the private sector to go where it has never gone before, making the free enterprise system accountable for providing livable wages for all of America's families.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in the long and expensive history of corporate welfare, no law has evaded reform more successfully than the mining law of 1872. For 125 years, since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, this law has governed hard rock mining in America. And throughout those 125 years, as billions of dollars in public gold, silver, and other valuable resources have been mined, the taxpayers have not received one dime in royalties. We don't treat any other resource that way--not coal, not water, not oil or gas. No State allows mining on its land without some royalty. No private landowner tolerates it. No foreign nation. ``Only in America,'' as they say, would we give away billions of dollars in gold and ask nothing for the taxpayers who own it. But it isn't fair to say we get nothing from the mining activity. The mining industry has left behind a legacy of environmental destruction-- including hundreds of thousands of abandoned, toxic and contaminated minesites, that threaten our environment, our public health and our public lands and wildlife. Fifty-nine sites on the Superfund list are the result of hardrock mining. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mine wastes have polluted more than 12,000 miles of our Nation's waterways and 180,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs. At least 50 billion tons of untreated, unreclaimed mining wastes--including arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury, sulphur, and zinc-contaminate public and private lands. The costs of clean-up is in the tens of billions of dollars. Those of us who represent western States know there are special problems resulting from past mining activity. In California, the inactive Iron Mountain mine discharges one-fourth of the entire national discharge of copper and zinc to surface waters from industrial and municipal sources, according to the EPA. The city of Redding can no longer use the Sacramento River for drinking water because of the contamination levels. In Colorado, a father and son were riding their motorbikes cross- county when they plunged into an unmarked abandoned mine. The son was killed. In Nevada, long-abandoned Comstock Lode gold and silver mines are leaching heavy metals into the Carson River, not far from Lake Tahoe. In Montana, windblown heavy metal particulates from old mine tailings forced official to replace high-school baseball fields around Butte. In Idaho, EPA found lead levels in the area downwind from the abandoned Bunker Hill silver mine to be 30 times higher than the maximum levels deemed ``safe.'' Nearly all of the 179 children living within 1 mile of the site have potentially brain-impairing lead levels in their blood. This is the legacy--not only of an antiquated mining program that let mining companies run amok, but of a Congress that has ignored the mounting cost to taxpayers, to the environment, and to public health. It has to end. The bills Senator Dale Bumpers and I are introducing today will raise $1.5 billion directly from the industry that has profited from the mining program in order to clean-up the legacy of the mining program. Our bills will: Impose a 5-percent net smelter return royalty on all hard rock minerals mined from public lands to that taxpayers will-- finally--receive a fair return on the extraction of hard rock minerals from public lands; impose a reclamation fee on all hard rock minerals mined from lands patented under the 1872 mining law; and close the depletion allowance loophole so that mining operators can no longer take a tax credit for depleting taxpayers' mineral wealth. Overhaul of the mining law is long overdue. Powerful special interests, with the help of a few members of Congress, have literally lined their pockets with gold. And the taxpayer and the environment have paid the price. These bills will finally begin to give a fair return to the taxpayer and restore despoiled public lands. Why might we succeed in 1997 were we have failed before? Because, I believe, the public is demanding an end to the multi-billion dollar orgy of corporate welfare that swells our deficit every year. Because the Clinton administration has targeted the mining program for reform in its 1998 budget. Because we are winning bipartisan support for ending outdated and expensive Federal subsidies. And because, even in the mining States of the West, four out of five Americans support mining reform. It is a disgrace that on the eve of the 21st century, taxpayers and the environment continue to be ripped off by an antiquated law from the 19th century. If Congress is serious about reducing wasteful and unjustified corporate welfare, we should begin by reforming the mining law of 1872.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues who preceded me in the well have pointed out, one of most important items on the agenda of this Congress is campaign finance reform. Until we are able to reform this system, we will not regain the confidence of the American people that there is a level playing field in the Congress of the United States for the average American and the special interests. Day after day the press reports to us of special accommodations that are given to those with the most money invested in campaigns of Members of Congress, Members of the Senate, members of the administration and members of the opposing party in the Presidential campaign. It is very clear that these reports are making the people even more cynical about our political system than they are today. Our obligation is to report campaign finance reform from the House of Representatives to the Senate at the earliest possible date. The reason we must do that is that, time and again, the delay of consideration of campaign finance reform not only changes the likelihood that it will ever become law but, should it become law, it postpones it through one more cycle of campaigns. If we do not do campaign finance reform very quickly in the House and in the Senate, pretty soon Members will say, it cannot take effect in 1998, it must take effect 4 years from now. And then we go through an entire new cycle of the outrageous sums of money that are being lavished on campaigns in this country. That is why we are pleading with the Republican leadership and the Speaker of the House to schedule campaign finance reform. The President has asked that it be done by July 4. Over 100 Members of this body sent both the Speaker of the House and the minority leader of the House a letter asking that we do it in the first 100 days. Two years ago we saw a very aggressive legislative agenda for the first 100 days of that Congress. That Congress worked more hours, took more votes and passed more legislation in that 100 days, I believe than any other Congress in history. Now we come to this Congress. Today is the 9th legislative day. We are in session today. We have no votes today. It is the 9th legislative day; however, today is in fact the 26th calendar day of the year. We have chosen to be in session 9 of those days. If we comply with the President's request and pass campaign finance reform by July 4, it will be the 129th calendar day of this session, but under our current schedule it will be only the 63d legislative day of the year. I think we can start to see that the Congress is meeting less than 1 out of every 2 days. If we ask that we do it in the first 100 days, the 100th day would be May 26 of this year. But if we go under the current schedule put forth by the Republican leadership, the 100th day will be October 14. That will signal that campaign finance reform is going to die. We have got to do better than working every other day or every third day on behalf of the issue of campaign finance reform. Clearly this is an issue where people have studied it for many years. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are many proposals, many of which Members of this body can live with, many which would improve the system, many of which would make the system more transparent and open to public scrutiny. We ought to move on that agenda, and we ought to move with the dispatch of at least what the President asked for or what the Members of this Congress have asked for, in the first 100 days. If we do not, if we do not, soon we will be talking not about campaign finance reform for the next election but we will be talking about it for the election after that. And what will happen if that happens is we will continue the corrosive impact of campaign contributions on the workings of this institution. Very often the press likes to talk about a vote that has been taken and the money that has been given. But we all understand that there are a whole other series of decisions made. Some are public and some are not. It is not just about what we do, it is not just about the vote we take. It is about the issue not presented to the Congress, it is about the vote not taken, it is about the amendment not offered. Today too many of those decisions are being influenced by the promise of campaign contributions or the receipt of campaign contributions in the past. We must take that away from this institution. We must return this institution back to a level playing field so that the average person in this country will have confidence that our decisions are made on the level, and that they are made on the merits and not based upon who received what money in what amount to vote one way or the other on a given issue or not to have an issue considered.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week this Congress and the Nation watched as the Republican leadership and the Speaker of this House bargained with, negotiated with, and twisted the arms of the members of the Republican caucus to support the Speaker to be reelected as Speaker of this House for the 105th Congress. That was done because the effort was made to be sure that we would vote on the Speaker of the House of Representatives before the Ethics Committee had completed its work. That was unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that we would in fact do that. But now this morning we learn that the Ethics Committee is continuing in that path, because we see now that the schedule of the Ethics Committee that has been set forth by the chairperson of that committee requires that the House will vote on whatever recommended punishment the committee will make to the House, that the House will vote on that prior to the issuance of the final report of the Ethics Committee. What does this mean? It means that both the Members of the House of Representatives and our constituents will be denied the access to the information necessary on which to make an informed judgment, very similar to the situation that those who supported the candidacy of Speaker Gingrich earlier this week were put in, in having to vote for him for Speaker before they knew whether or not he was ethically fit to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. What is becoming very clear is that the continued orchestration of the Ethics Committee by the Republican leadership to try and dampen the flow of information to the Members of Congress and to the members of the public continues. This committee should be allowed to function independently, and this committee should be allowed to function without a debt to the leadership of this House. We have hired a special counsel to seek that independence. That special counsel should be allowed to do his work. That special counsel should be allowed to present the evidence, and that special counsel should be allowed to write the final report of this committee prior to the Congress voting, voting on any recommended punishment brought forth by the committee. But it is also very clear that it is now the intent, it is now the intent of the Ethics Committee to keep that from happening. So once again, we are put in the position of Alice in Wonderland, where once again we will render a verdict first and later we will look at the facts and we will look at the evidence. I think it is very, very improper that the Members of the House of Representatives be put in this position by the Ethics Committee. I believe, as the House turned down the bipartisan recommendation of the ethics investigative subcommittee and of the special counsel in not allowing them additional time to prepare their work product, it was for the first time, I believe, in the history of the Congress where we turned down a recommendation of a special counsel, a person that is supposed to bring independence to this, on their recommendation that they needed additional time to complete their work product in a proper fashion for a presentation to the committee and to the Congress. So we now see a series of votes being forced upon the House of Representatives, the sole purpose of which is to deny access to information by the very people that will have to vote on the recommendations of the Ethics Committee. The Members of the House, on a bipartisan basis, should reject that notion. We should not go forward with a vote prior to the issuance of the final report of the special counsel. Then the Members can go home and say to their constituents, however they decided to vote, that they in fact had a full opportunity to examine the entire record and to take counsel with themselves and their sense of propriety about the actions and the ethics of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and then they cast their vote, rather than to be able to say to their constituents, well, I voted, and then I was able to read the report. There is nobody in America that believes that that is the way that we should conduct the public's business. The public's business should be conducted openly and it should be conducted in a forthright fashion. What we are witnessing over the past several days is an effort to shut down both the ability of the press, the ability of the public, and the ability of the Members of Congress to have access to that information to make an informed judgment on behalf of the Congress and on behalf of our constituents.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Be it resolved that the Select Committee on Ethics should complete its final report concerning Representative Newt Gingrich, and release that report to the public, before the House of Representatives considers a disciplinary resolution concerning the matter.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Be it resolved that the Select Committee on Ethics should, when it releases its final report concerning Representative Newt Gingrich, disclose to the public all documents concerning the matter, including but not limited to the work of the special counsel.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had the chance to join many in my community to both mourn the death and celebrate the life of Rev. Percel Napoleon Sumpter, pastor of Solomon Temple Missionary Baptist Church. For more than 30 years Reverend Sumpter has been a leader in our community. He worked tirelessly to promote a better understanding between various factions of our community, getting the police to understand our youth and helping young people work with the police, trying to provide job opportunities for those on public assistance, and seeking better housing for the elderly and low income. Our community owes a great deal to Reverend Sumpter. Like the hundreds of people who attended his homegoing celebration on Saturday, I will miss Reverend Sumpter and all of his wisdom and counsel. Our entire community conveys to the Sumpter family our deepest sympathy. I am enclosing below an obituary of Reverend Sumpter that may inspire many of us as we seek to help our own communities. Obituary ``The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.'' Luke 4:18-19 The Reverend Dr. Percel Napoleon Sumpter was born in Columbia City, Florida, on December 22, 1925, to his proud parents, the late Mr. Lewis and Mrs. Eva Sumpter. Dr. Sumpter was one of seven children. He was preceded in death by one brother, Reverend Lazarus Sumpter; two sisters, Mittiean Latson and Rosa Fashaw. Dr. Sumpter was reared in a Christian home and taught Christian principles by his parents. He confessed Christ and was baptized at an early age and united with Bethel Baptist Church in Fort Pierce, Florida. Reverend C. Byrd was his pastor. He received his education in the public schools in Columbia City, Florida, and received his Masters Degree in Manual Carpentry from Lincoln Park Academy of Columbia City, Florida. He was always interested in gospel music. As he grew older, he was inspired by God and his interest grew stronger. At the age of eighteen, he was blessed to organize and sing with the Truetone Gospel Singers and the Golden Bell Jubilee Singers of Fort Pierce, Florida. He became a professional singer and was blessed and privileged to tour through most Southern, Midwestern and Western States, singing in concert with renowned recording artists. He was noted as the star leader of the singing group. He and his singing group was blessed and honored to sing for branches of the United States Armed Services. In 1954 he changed his place of resident from Florida to Vallejo, California. He united with the St. John Baptist Church of Vallejo, California, and joined the choir, known as the Voices of St. John. On April 9, 1964, he confessed his calling to the ministry under the leadership of Dr. Calvin Miller. He was licensed May 14, 1964, and ordained September 12, 1965, by Dr. Calvin Miller. He served as the assistant pastor of Good Samaritan Baptist Church of Vallejo, California, where Dr. Calvin Miller was pastor. Dr. Sumpter retained his membership at Good Samaritan Baptist Church, where Reverend M.D. Slade is pastor at this time. Dr. Sumpter continued his education at Solano College for three semesters. He received an honorary Doctorate of Achievement Degree from the United Theological Seminary of Monroe, Louisiana, by Dr. S. Henry White, Registrar. He attended the Progressive Baptist Seminary in Vallejo, California. He also attended the National Congress, U.S.A., Inc. and taught classes on ``Jesus and His Teaching in Light of the New Testament''. In February, 1967, Solomon Temple was in need of a pastor; one that would spiritually motivate the congregation. The Church prayerfully searched for that special God-sent man. Several ministers were given appointments to speak to the membership. Dr. Sumpter was included. Dr. Sumpter delivered to the Church a message from God. He closed his message with a song: ``It's Another Day's Journey, and I'm Glad About It''. On February 26, 1967, Dr. Sumpter was installed as the pastor of Solomon Temple Missionary Baptist Church by Reverend J.L. Johnson, pastor of Elizabeth Baptist Church, Richmond, California. Under the dynamic Christian leadership of Dr. Sumpter, many stimulating auxiliaries and classes have been organized for the purpose of nurturing Christian growth. He was employed by the Hoffman Company in Concord, California, as a master carpenter for twenty-five years until retiring in 1984. Dr. Sumpter shared liberally his time, his God-given talents and his strong Christian influence and material possessions so that each of us may know through his visual example how to become true Stewards of Christ. He was currently serving as an Instructor for the St. Vincent de Paul Employee Training Program. November 24, 1996, Dr. Sumpter preached his last sermon at Solomon Temple Missionary Baptist Church from scriptures: Psalms 72:16 and Psalms 73:1-2. The subject: ``Christ, Our Sufficiency''. On December 27, 1997, Dr. Sumpter answered the welcome voice of his Savior, and was translated into the presence of Jesus. He leaves to cherish his memory; his loving and devoted wife of forty-two years, Mrs. Arimentha Sumpter, Vallejo, California. Four daughters: Margaret Cooley, Vallejo, California; Joyce Balkum Sumpter, Rochester, New York; Sonja Reese, Fort Meyers, Florida; and Sadie Shivers, Dale City, Virginia. Three sons: Terry Sumpter, Vallejo, California; Aaron Sumpter, Petersburg, Virginia; and Calvin Smith, Fort Pierce, Florida. Godson: Victor A. Jones, San Diego, California. One sister: Anna Wilson, Lake City, Florida. Two brothers: Reverend Nathaniel Sumpter, Quincy, Florida and Aaron Sumpter, Lake City, Florida. Fifteen grandsons, a special grandson, Paul Cooley, Sr., Vallejo, California, nine granddaughters, eleven great- grandchildren, a special great grandson, Paul Cooley, Jr., Vallejo, California; a host of other relatives, Solomon Temple Church family and many, many friends. Servant of God, Well Done! Thy glorious warfare's past; The battle's fought, the race is won, And thou art crowned at last. Dr. Sumpter's affiliations, recognition awards, certificates and community services are many and are not listed by request of the family.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would just encourage my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we would have an opportunity in the rules of this House to have a deadline set on the consideration of campaign finance reform by the House of Representatives. Those who are new to the House of Representatives will soon see that usually the party in power deals with campaign finance reform through delay and dilatory tactics until we can get it at such a time that we pass it to the Senate in the last moments of the first session, and then it falls prey to a filibuster in the Senate, and then at some point the leader in the Senate will announce that the Senate must get on with the important business of the Nation, and campaign finance reform will have to be withdrawn from the calendar. That is why we do not get campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, in this session of the Congress, the 100th legislative day falls sometime late in September. If we deal with campaign finance reform late in September, there will be no finance reform and the argument will be made that it certainly cannot take effect in the next campaign, it will have to be 2 years later. So we are talking about 4 years from now to have campaign finance reform. It is too important to the people of this country. The system we have now is a cesspool. It has got to be corrected. It permeates every decision made in this body, it permeates every decision made in the executive branch, and it permeates every decision made in the Senate, and that has got to stop. It dictates what we bring up, what we do not bring up, amendments that are offered and amendments that are not offered. That has got to stop, and we have got to return the business of this country back to the people of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed S. 39, ``The Sustainable Fisheries Act,'' and sent that measure to the President. I regret that this important fishery management bill was significantly altered, and weakened, by the Senate during a year of consideration, and that the House was denied any opportunity to improve on that version of the legislation. H.R. 39 as passed by the House last year was a much stronger bill for the fish and the fishermen. While I realize that S. 39 does include important conservation measures, these measures could have been stronger. They should have provided more protection for the fish stocks, the fishing communities, and for the taxpayers. The inferior version finally passed by the Senate contained many provisions that are unacceptable to the West Coast fishing industry, including commercial fishermen and processors. And it contains several provisions were particularly unacceptable, such as authorizing the Secretary to buy back fishing permits (that were granted for free) in biologically depressed fisheries and allowing violators of International Whaling Commission restrictions to gain access to U.S. territorial waters. The Senate also deleted provisions of the House bill to assure that smaller communities are fairly represented, and to prohibit the private profiting from the sale of fishing quotas, which could also allow the growing concentration of quotas in the hands of the large-scale industry at the expense of family fishermen. I am inserting in the Record two letters from fisheries industry groups in California, expressing their opposition to the House acceptance of S. 39 and their desire to see amendments made to the bill before it became law. Finally, I would just like to thank the fishing families of California for their support. During the past two years, they worked tirelessly with us to ensure that the best Magnuson bill possible was enacted into law. I regret that in the final analysis, the House leadership decided simply to accept the Senate's version that was negotiated with no input from the House. I salute the efforts of those families. In addition, I pledge to work with them in the years ahead to continue to seek the protections that our small fishing families and the fishery resources deserve. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Sausalito, CA, September 23, 1996. Hon. George Miller, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington,

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of this legislation, the Omnibus Park bill. This is, as many have already said, a product of bipartisan negotiations throughout many months, although it came down to the eleventh hour today, but throughout many months, over the provisions of this bill, and it makes some important additions and changes to our historic areas from San Francisco to Boston, from Alaska to Alabama. I want to commend my colleagues and the chairman of the House Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for his work and his patience, his patience in this effort. I know how he feels when we send bills to the Senate 1 year ago and 8 months ago and 6 months ago and they are never heard from until the eleventh hour. But because of his patience we are here tonight with this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson , the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] for his effort as the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands, to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who was involved in brokering and helping to negotiate this, and to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for his involvement and his perseverance on the matter of the Heritage Areas. I also want to say that this bill also deals with the matter that is important to me, and that is that it authorizes $400 million to assure the implementation of crucial ecosystems restoration efforts to improve water quality, fishery and resources of San Francisco and Sacramento- San Juaquin Delta. This is an important step in implementing the Bay Area Accords that highlights the continuing success of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 and moves us toward a consensus instead of conflict in California water policy, and I am particularly grateful for the bipartisan support that has been garnered for this effort. Finally, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation started out as a single bill at one point, and that was to authorize the Presidio National Park in San Francisco, and I think every Member of this House knows how hard the gentlewoman from San Francisco [Ms. Pelosi] has worked on this effort. She has been absolutely tireless and relentless in her pursuit to see this, and I mean relentless as a compliment, in her pursuit to see this matter become law and to give a gift to this Nation of what is going to be one of the great, great national parks for visitors from across this Nation and from around the world as they visit this. This is an effort to try to make sure that we can lessen the burden on the taxpayer and the operation of that park. And I also want to thank our Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein, for all of their effort, and I too want to recognize the effort of Judy Lemons in her support for this and her working on this and to John Lawrence and to Rick Healy for their negotiations today and to the minority staff. Finally, let me say to the Members who are in strong support of this legislation, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] knows that we were here in the last night of the last Congress and we lost many of these same projects, and we lost that effort. Those of my colleagues who are rising in strong support of this legislation, I would ask them to put in a kind word with their Senator on behalf of this legislation so these parks in some cases can be expanded or created and heritage areas can succeed, and I think this will turn out to be a major gift in terms of public lands management and to the people of this Nation. Again, I want to thank all those who worked so terribly hard to get us here tonight and to Jeff Petrich, who worked very hard certainly on the Alaska provisions and was involved in these last hours of negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for a somewhat related matter. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to speak out of order and to revise and extend his remarks.) congratulating Texas Rangers on Landmark Season

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1973, the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996. This bill is another step in the right direction toward bringing the problems with the land dispute between the two tribes to a close. It will enact the settlement agreement reached between the Hopi Tribe and the Department of Justice acting on behalf of the United States. S. 1973 will provide the Hopi Tribe with the authority to enter in lease agreements with Navajo residents living on Hopi partitioned land. These leases will allow the Navajo residents to live peaceably on Hopi land for 75 years with the promise that they will be treated under Hopi law the same as members of the Hopi Tribe. Further, this legislation will settle four law suits pending against the United States by the Hopi Tribe. Enactment of this bill will save millions in continued litigation costs and probable U.S. liability. I urge my colleagues to support this measure--the Hopi Tribe has remained willing to negotiate and discuss each issue which has arisen over this matter. They have waited long enough for this bill to pass. I want to thank the Navajo nation for its help in getting this settlement to this point. I further wish to thank the Hopi Tribe, the tribal council, and particularly chairman Ferrell Secakuku and Kim Secakuku for their determination and long hours of hard work. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.