George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard on the point of order.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker from Florida got up and was talking about his initiative to reform the rules of theHouse Ethics Committee and stated about whether or not a report could be released or information can be released. I am differing with the gentleman with respect to that statement and the statement of the rules of theHouse. I believe the rules of the Ethics Committee are not a matter before the committee.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago, a member of theHouse Ethics Committee from Florida came and spoke about the rules of that committee. Earlier today we had a discussion on this floor. In fact, we were prevented from having a discussion about whether or not that committee should release a report that is currently before it with respect to the activities of Speaker Gingrich and the tax laws of this country and the misuse of nonprofit charitable foundations in political campaigns. The speaker said that apparently they could not release the report, and the chairman of that committee has said they cannot release that report, that the rules do not allow for it. I would refer them to the rules of theHouse which have been mimicked in the rules of the committee. It said, no information or testimony received-- point of order

Mr. MILLER of California. The point being this, if I can finish reading this section: That no information or testimony received or the contents of a complaint or the fact of a finding, of a filing shall be publicly disclosed by any committee or staff member unless, unless specifically authorized in each instance by a vote of the full committee. The point being this: Any report that is before the committee on House ethics at any time can be released by a vote of that committee. Should the committee choose not to vote, that report will continue to be secret. If the committee shall choose to vote, that report will become public both to the Members of this House and to the Members of the public in general. This issue, this issue about the committee's ability to release or not release a report is not one of first impression before this Congress. It was raised in 1988 in the matter regarding Speaker Jim Wright. At that time Congressman Newt Gingrich, not then-Speaker but now-Speaker, Congressman Newt Gingrich wrote to the gentleman from California, Julian Dixon, then chairman of the Ethics Committee, and said to him that he believed that it was absolutely essential that all 435 Members of this House have access to the reports and to information. He went on to list, I believe, eight or nine criteria in that letter that he believed should be invoked, the most important of which have not been currently done in this session of the Congress. That is that any special or independent counsel appointed by the Ethics Committee shall have the ability to conduct a free and full investigation, that the committee shall in no way hamper that, the committee shall only cooperate, and that that special counsel shall have the discretion from time to time to make a decision to release information or to make public statements. Speaker Gingrich in 1988 said he had serious concerns about whether or not the Ethics Committee was engaging in that fashion, asked for the release of the report on Speaker Wright before the subcommittee had a chance to fully consider it or the full committee and all, all relevant documents, transcripts, statements, interviews of any witnesses before that committee. Now we find that in fact we are told that we cannot adhere to what has been the policy of the Ethics Committee from its inception on a bipartisan basis to deliver to this Congress and to the people of this country a report on ethical charges by any Member against any other Member, by members of the public against Members, an unbiased report. The problem that we have today is the problem that we had in 1988. Again, that problem was recognized by Speaker Gingrich when he stated that it was simply untenable for the American public to believe and for Members of this House to believe that we could have a free and open and fair investigation of the most powerful Member of this House, the Speaker of theHouse of Representatives, by the Ethics Committee, and there should be in place at all times a free and fair investigation by an independent and special counsel.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that we might stall a vote for support of our troops that may or may not be in harm's way, but are clearly flying at this time missions of risk, and we would stall that based upon whether or not Saddam Hussein believes this is an act of war because we have moved some military hardware and perhaps some troops into a country that has already been attacked and assaulted and invaded by Saddam Hussein in the past, and he has built up military assets on their border. So now it is Saddam Hussein's characterization of what this President has done that may or may not dictate whether or not we are going to provide a congressional resolution of support for our troops. It is just ludicrous that we would be in that situation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Further, ``The committee shall give the outside counsel full cooperation in the issuance of subpoenas. ``The outside counsel shall be free, after discussions with the Committee, to make such public statements and reports the counsel deems appropriate. ``The outside counsel shall have full authority to recommend what formal charges be brought before the Ethics Committee. ``The committee shall not countermand or interfere with the outside counsel's ability to take steps necessary to conduct a full and fair investigation.'' The Speaker went on to say it was his impression from the press reports that ``the Ethics Committee has specifically failed to meet the test that was set forth by Common Cause.'' He says, ``I would therefore like a copy of the resolution, the guidelines adopted by the Ethics Committee outlining the authority the committee has given the special counsel in order to carry out the responsibilities of the outside counsel.'' Mr. Speaker, if it was good in 1988 for Speaker Wright, then it is good today for Speaker Gingrich.

Mr. MILLER of California. I only wanted you to do that after I presented the evidence.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have not been heard on the point of order. I have a right to be heard.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the words I have uttered up until the time I was interrupted are not my words. They are in fact the words of Speaker Gingrich on July 28, 1988, in a letter from Speaker Gingrich to theHonorable Julian Dixon, the former Chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is proper. If I can continue to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to a matter that is currently before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I am speaking to a matter that was before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in 1988, where the question was raised at that time as to whether or not that committee had, one, limited the scope of inquiry by the special counsel, where the question was raised as to the contract between the special counsel and the committee, and whether or not the committee was----

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard on the point of order?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, ``I have a number of concerns regarding the Ethics Committee's contract and instructions to the special counsel. ``First, I am concerned that the scope and authority and the independence of the special counsel will be limited by the guidelines the Ethics Committee has established. ``The committee shall give the special counsel full cooperation in the issuance of subpoenas.'' point of order

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill commending California's NetDay96 activities and the tens of thousands of NetDay participants, and affirming this House's commitment to providing the Nation's school classrooms with the necessary technology for the 21st century. The State of California is know for its high technology economy and as the birthplace of the personal computer. Yet, we rank 33d nationwide in overall technology spending per student in our schools, at $3 per student per year. Most classrooms still lack telephone wires. Nationally, many schools are struggling with outdated textbooks and lack the resources to purchase the latest informational and instructional resources. Fieldtrips to museums, laboratories, and other off-campus sites are an expensive luxury that cannot be enjoyed frequently. And, only a handful of schools can afford to send their students to visit overseas locations Providing Internet access to our classrooms has the potential to be an important educational asset. This is more than about learning how to use a computer. It's about access to information. Information about scientific discoveries, information about historical findings, information about the latest legislative activities in government. It is also about the excitement of direct interaction. The excitement of interacting with top museums all over the world; the excitement of interacting with laboratories on the cutting edge of scientific research; the excitement of interacting with field scientists working at remote locations; the excitement of interacting with other children halfway around the world. Such learning enhancement provided by the Internet is not limited to science and technology. A survey of more than 130 recent academic studies showed that technology-based instruction improved student performance in language arts, math, and social studies, as well as in science. On March 9, 1996, my State of California held its NetDay96 to wire 3,500 schools statewide to give our students access to the Internet. On this one Saturday, over 50,000 volunteers participated, ranging from students, teachers, and parents to local community groups. On this 1 day, over 1,000 sponsors contributed, ranging from high technology companies to donut shops. I was joined by President Clinton and Vice President Gore at Ygnacio Valley High School in my district, where we helped install wires. I would like to extend my appreciation to President Clinton and Vice President Gore for their leadership and support in providing technology to our schools. I also thank the two cofounders of NetDay96, Mr. John Gage of Sun Microsystems and Michael Kaufman of KQED, the thousands of sponsoring companies, and the tens of thousands of volunteers, for bringing the Internet to California schools. After hearing about California's successful NetDay96, some 40 States and 15 countries have asked the NetDay96 organizers to put together a similar event in their State or country. The organizers responded with a nationwide NetDay96 Month, to be held over four Saturdays this October. Members of Congress, and anyone else, can find out if their State has signed on for this event by going to the NetDay96 Web site at www.netday96.com. Mr. Speaker, more and more companies are eager to contribute to this effort. Just recently, the cable TV industry announced that it would assist in providing Internet connection to schools all across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity and help their States' schools to gain access to this valuable tool called the Internet and join me in this resolution promoting NetDay96 throughout the entire Nation. As wonderful as the Internet is in providing information, we must also keep in mind that it is an unregulated medium and that there is much unverified information. To guard against inappropriate or inaccurate information, proper technological barriers should be put in place, proper supervision provided, and proper information review exercised. In that regard, teachers must be trained not only on how to use the Internet, but also to be aware of and compensate for the pitfalls in the system. We must remember that the Internet is only a tool; how this tool is used by teachers, students, and parents will determine its usefulness and effectiveness. Regardless of the availability of the Internet in schools, we must not forget that we still need dedicated teachers, effective administrators, concerned parents, and adequate funding to have the best educated children and work force in the world for the 21st century.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion offered by Mr. Stokes, particularly with regard to two important provisions that will have great benefits for American families--the provisions to protect new mothers and their infants by ensuring minimum maternity benefits; and provisions that begin to address the very serious problem of health insurance discrimination against persons with mental illness. I was the first Member of Congress to introduce legislation to stop drive-through deliveries when it became apparent in my home State of California, where managed care is widely used, that short hospital stays for maternity was a good way to save insurers money. Such short stays were having serious consequences for the health and well-being of new mothers and their babies, and it was clear that legislation was needed to prescribe a minimum period for insurance coverage to stop insurers from dictating what should be a medical decision. At least 29 States have agreed and adopted such laws or regulations. We must guarantee that this minimum standard be applied nationally, and include so-called ERISA plans, and the only way we can do this is through the amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill that was adopted unanimously by the Senate under the able leadership of Senator Bradley. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and I join in a bipartisan effort to promote the Bradley/Kassebaum/Frist babies legislation that was moving in the Senate and in the House by jointly sponsoring H.R. 3226. At last count, 111 of you have signed on to this bill, and the President has repeatedly urged its adoption. As far as the mental health parity provisions are concerned, they are an important first step to equalize health insurance plan coverage for the treatment of mental illnesses and other medical conditions. The evidence is clear: severe mental illness is every bit as debilitating and treatable as physical illnesses. When is this country going to stop the unfounded prejudice against the mentally ill? When are insurers going to stop perpetuating this myth that coverage for mental illness will somehow break the bank and that this somehow justifies insurance discrimination against millions of citizens? The Senate has seen the light on this issue and has voted three times this Congress for mental health parity. While the provisions most recently adopted in H.R. 3666 do not go as far as I would have preferred, I do believe they establish a critical new protection for individuals who suffer from mental illness who need catastrophic insurance coverage, and for their families. I am happy that the gentleman from Ohio has brought the attention of the House to these important provisions that were added to H.R. 3666 by the other body, and urge my colleagues to support his effort.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times has it about right. For the past 2 years we have witnessed a systematic coverup and stall by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in dealing with the ethics complaints regarding our Speaker, Newt Gingrich. They stalled for the consideration of the early complaints. They dismissed those complaints without interviewing without gathering evidence. They stalled in the gathering of evidence in the major complaints against Speaker Gingrich. And finally, reluctantly, they yielded to public pressure and appointed an outside counsel. But when they appointed the outside counsel, they restrained his ability to engage in a comprehensive investigation, and then they limited his mandate and what he could investigate. And then, finally, they did not allow him to draw conclusions from the investigation that he engaged in after spending $500,000. This House cannot go home to our constituents and not be able to report on the findings of the special counsel. The time has come for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to stop the coverup, to stop the stall, and to give this House the information that it has and to let the special counsel do its work.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Continuing this unprecedented bipartisan harmony, we have no objection to this measure and the administration supports this bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3147 provides for the exchange of lands between the Bureau of Land Management and the Merced Irrigation District. Under the legislation, 179 acres of scattered BLM lands within the irrigation district's water project area would be exchanged for 160 acres of land the irrigation district owns within the boundaries of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. We have no objection to the measure. The administration supports the bill. It is an even value exchange that will benefit both the irrigation district and the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, that is the point. The President talked about Mr. Dole, talking about being a bridge to the past and a bridge to the future. In effect, what you saw out here for 18 months was an attempt by the Republican Party to go back to the past, to a time where there was not the EPA, where we did not have the Clean Water Act, where we did not have the Safe Drinking Water Act, where we did not have nutrition programs for children, when we did not have a Medicare program to take care of the elderly. The fact is, that is being rejected. That is being rejected throughout the country. Each and every time, as the public learns more and more about what this agenda was, what the ramifications of this contract were on regulatory reform, on environmental laws, on the nutrition laws, on our education program, that has been rejected, and it is being rejected overwhelmingly. We ought not to go back to those days, because in fact our communities have benefited from these environmental laws, our elderly have benefited from programs like Medicare, and poor populations have benefited from the Medicaid. We just cannot go back in this country. That is really what the contract was about. It is about what the first year was about. It is what the shutdown was about. It was about if you do not let us, to go back to a time without Medicare, without Medicaid, without nutrition, we are going to shut down the Government. We have seen that show. We have been there, we have done that. That is unacceptable to the American public. I think what we are starting to see is people want to focus on the future, and about the opportunity to have better communities, safer neighborhoods, and more secure families as we go into the next century.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], who has worked very hard on title VI of this legislation dealing with the North St. Vrain River and Rocky Mountain National Park.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Most of the titles of this legislation we are in agreement with, but we along with the administration, as they noted in their testimony, are concerned about the protections provided in the Hanford Reach provisions of this legislation. The concern being that we are accepting a much lesser degree of protection than we believe and the administration believes the Hanford Reach deserves, and are concerned whether or not this will eventually lead to the loss of vital natural and cultural resources. We recognize that there is disagreement on this, but we are concerned that this does not provide the level of protection that is necessary. Mr. Speaker, the amendments adopted by the Resources Committee wraps into H.R. 2292 several river bills pending before the committee. Several of the titles in the amended bill are either opposed by the administration or they otherwise have concerns with the language. This is not a noncontroversial bill. We would have preferred that the House take up these river bills separately. As the administration noted in its testimony, if not followed by subsequent actions, the Hanford Reach provisions of H.R. 2292 would result in a far lesser degree of protection than the Hanford Reach deserves and could result in the potential loss of vital natural and cultural resources. We have no objection to the Lamprey River title. I understand the administration supports the bill and that the language is consistent with what we have done for similar rivers. We also have no objection to the provisions dealing with the North St. Vrain. The House passed the same legislation in the last Congress, also sponsored by Representative Skaggs. The administration has expressed some minor concerns about certain provisions in the West Virginia rivers title, specifically as they relate to river access and fish stocking activities, but these should not delay its passage. Likewise I would note that the administration does not support the language dealing with the Missouri River. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the desire to package legislation, but in this case, with the concerns and objections outstanding, it may eventually delay, rather than facilitate, enactment of the various provisions.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep personal sadness that I rise today to share with my colleagues the passing of Rollie Mullen of Moraga, CA. Rollie was a truly remarkable woman who left an indelible mark on our entire community. Her career of over 15 years with Battered Women's Alternatives was never just a job to Rollie--it was a passion. Her advocacy and activism on behalf of families living with the fear of domestic violence won her considerable praise--Entrepreneur of the Year Award from Inc magazine and the Haas School of Business, United Way's Seaton Manning Award for Outstanding Agency Professional of the Bay Area, and the San Francisco Foundation's John R. May Award for creative leadership. But more important to Rollie was the attention it brought to this critical social issue. Rollie believed that we as a society have a responsibility not only to intervene in case of domestic violence, but to take steps to prevent violence in the home from ever occurring. She put this prevention ideology into practice at Battered Women's Alternatives with much success, and she effectively used this success to promote domestic violence prevention as part of our public policy agenda. Rollie's death is a tremendous loss that will be felt by our community for some time to come. Yet those of us who knew her take great comfort in knowing that her spirit is still with us in the health and security of the countless families who have been healed through her efforts. She was a caring, dedicated individual. She was my friend, and I will miss her. I would like to enclose the following article from the Contra Costa Times about Rollie Mullen. [From the Contra Costa Times, Aug. 10, 1996] Services Planned Aug. 19 For Women's Center Head (By Maria Camposeco) Friends, famiy and admirers from across the country are expected at services Aug. 19 for Rollie Mullen, a rape-crisis volunteer who transformed a small shelter into the pre- eminent Battered Women's Alternatives of Contra Costa. ``We are going to celebrate her values,'' said Mullen's husband of 33 years, Joe Mullen. The 56-year-old Mullen died Thursday of an infection contracted following cancer surgery last month. A family marriage counselor from Moraga, Mullen joined the Concord battered women's shelter as a volunteer in 1979 and became executive director in 1985. Mullen raised the facility's profile and budget with the help of private donors, including the late Dean Lesher, founder and publisher of the Times newspapers. ``Rollie Mullen was the backbone of Battered Women's Alternatives and she is the reason Dean involved himself in building a transitional housing center, and why I have involved myself,'' said Lesher's widow, Margaret Lesher. ``Rollie Mullen cannot be replaced, but I think the best way we can honor her is to go forward with her project.'' A celebration Mass is scheduled at 6:30 p.m. Aug. 19, at St. Monica's Catholic Church, 1001 Camino Pablo, Moraga. A reception will follow. In addition to her husband, Mullen is survived by her children, Joseph William Mullen III of New York; Rollie Killeen of Moraga; Patty Studer of Seattle; father, Arthur J. McGinnis of New Jersey; four siblings; and two grandchildren. The family asks that in lieu of flowers, donations be sent to Battered Women's Alternatives, P.O. Box 6406, Concord, CA 94524.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. The bill was amended by the Committee on Resources to require that land transfers should be made pursuant to the Small Tracts Act, thereby protecting the public interest in this land transfer. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2238 deletes approximately 1 acre from the Raggeds Wilderness and authorizes the transfer of this land to the adjacent private landowners who thought the land was theirs based on erroneous private surveys. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2518 would authorize the transfer of sewage treatment facilities and associated lands on the Wenatchee National Forest to Public Utility No. 1 of Chelen County, in exchange for lands of equal value and other consideration. We have no objection to the measure and I would note that the administration also supports the bill. It is a fair deal for both the local utility district and the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and want to acknowledge the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Pat Williams, for the work he did on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1467, which would authorize appropriations for the construction of a rural water supply distribution facility for areas around Fort Peck Lake in north-central Montana. Most residents of the area now must have their drinking water delivered by tank truck. The bill as amended would strictly limit Federal expenditures for upgrading the water supply system, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 1467. S. 1467 as amended also waives the statutory 60-day congressional waiting period for approval of a Bureau of Reclamation dam safety report for the Cachuma Project in California. I have no objections to this provision of the bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his sponsorship of this bill and his long-standing interest in the concerns of the Kenai Native Association. This bill would ratify an agreement negotiated between KNA and the Department of the Interior. The bill provides the Native corporation with clear title to lands received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which are within the boundaries of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and subject to development restrictions. To equalize values in the exchange, KNA also would receive $4.4 million from the Exxon Valdez oil spill trust fund. Accordingly, this bill has no negative impact on the Federal budget. In return, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge would benefit by the acquisition of over 3,000 acres of prime fish and wildlife habitat along the Kenai River, one of the most important fishing and recreational watersheds in Alaska. About 592 acres of these acquired lands would be designated part of the refuge wilderness. The habitat values of the lands have been evaluated and their acquisition approved by the State-Federal trustee council which administers the Exxon Valdez trust fund. I have long supported prudent use of the Exxon Valdez monies for habitat protection in the region affected by the oil spill and I commend both Interior Secretary Babbitt and Alaska Governor Tony Knowles for their leadership within the council. In addition, to help compensate for the removal of KNA lands from the refuge boundaries, a 37,000 acre special fish and wildlife management area would be designated adjacent to the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge in nothern Alaska and administered by the BLM. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides significant opportunities for a Native corporation that has struggled for well over a decade to find an accommodation between the economic interests of its shareholders and the land management interests of the Fish and Wildlife Service. While other administrations have been indifferent to KNA's plight, the Interior Department has attempted in this bill to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of Native Alaskans and fish and wildlife protection. I urge the other body to avoid the temptation to rewrite the environmental designations or otherwise generate controversy and opposition. It is clearly in the best interests of KNA to have this legislation enacted into law this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation, and the administration supports it. H.R. 2122 designates a new national forest, the Lake Tahoe Basin National Forest, from lands within the Tahoe, Eldorado, and Toiyobe National Forests. Currently the lands, which total about 152,000 acres, are designated as the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and administered as a separate unit within the three existing national forests in the area. The administration supports the bill and we have no objection to its consideration. H.R. 2122 is a name change only, it will not alter how these lands are managed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.