George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I just want to mention that this legislation was introduced by our colleague the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for his cooperation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2636, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Oberstar, authorizes a three-way transfer of jurisdiction over several parcels of land among the Architect of the Capitol, the Secretary of the Interior, and the District of Columbia. In addition to facilitating management of these parcels, this transfer is being done for the purpose of setting aside a parcel of land adjacent to the Capitol Grounds for the proposed Japanese-American Patriotism Memorial. The memorial will honor the patriotic efforts of Japanese-Americans in World War II. It is our understanding that the parties involved support this transfer and we have no objection to the passage of the bill.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I support giving working families flexibility in their schedules, but I cannot support the Ballenger comp time bill because it seriously threatens the existence of overtime pay and the 40-hour workweek. This bill is just one part of a series of Republican bills that favor special interests over the public interest. All across this Nation, millions of working families are facing stagnant wages and the realization that for them the American Dream may be slipping away. Between 1979 and 1989, real wages either fell or were stagnant for the bottom 60 percent of the workforce. Moreover, while corporate profits were increasing during the first half of this decade, wages were continuing to lag far behind. For many struggling families, receiving overtime pay is often the difference between making ends meet and falling behind on bills. It is no wonder then that 64 percent of Americans oppose eliminating overtime pay. Equally important for struggling families is maintaining some normalcy in their lives by keeping the 40-hour workweek as our benchmark work schedule. Parents are finding they have less time to spend with their families given the increasing difficulty of staying financially afloat. Compared to the 1960's, the average person is working about an extra month more a year, and the number of mothers working has nearly tripled from 27.6 to 67.5 percent. As a result, polls show that most Americans believe their free, non-work time has been reduced nearly in half over the last two decades. Consequently, for 58 percent of families, working less the next week is not worth working more this week. Supporters of the comp time bill argue that their proposal would help these families by making voluntary, flexible work schedules available. But his bill would actually make matters much worse. There are no enforcement mechanisms in the bill to insure the voluntariness of any comp time arrangement. Workers would also have no power to refuse working longer hours, nor any clear ability to take time off when they need it. There are no record-keeping requirements, and unscrupulous employers would have a free hand to conveniently miscalculate comp time owed to workers. Additionally, this bill legalizes sweatshops because there is no exception for vulnerable industries. Under this bill, an unscrupulous employer who is violating wage and hour law will be able to say, ``My employees all opted for comp time instead of overtime pay, they just haven't taken their time off yet.'' Therefore, under the Ballenger bill, it may be lawful for an employer: to move workers into a comp time arrangement by stressing a preference for that system; to retaliate against workers who insist on receiving overtime pay; to make employees work 60 hours 1 week, and 20 hours the next with very little or no notice; and to effectively eliminate overtime pay all together. This is not what American families want or need. Workers are asking for higher wages, a predictable work schedule, and more time with their families. The Ballenger bill would not help families achieve those goals, and, in fact, would very likely make matters worse.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for accepting that amendment. I think it makes this legislative package much less controversial and its success chances much higher. It was my understanding that the administration did have serious problems with the Koniag portion of this legislation in the sense that the Government might get itself, under the original legislation, into the payment of rights that, in fact, perhaps were not even owned by the native corporation. I think this amendment takes care of it. I think, with that, this legislation deserves the support of all of the Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Utah has properly explained, this legislation provides for the Snowbasin land exchange as it was considered in the committee, and this is to facilitate the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2002. We believe that that is in fact proper. I do continue to have some reservations about our approval of a privately prepared master development plan and the sufficiency language which I believe is still in this legislation, but I also believe that this legislation is important to the facilities for the Olympics. This legislation also includes a provision for the funding of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission for acquisition of lands within Sterling Forest. Many of our colleagues, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Martini, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, Senator Bradley, Senator Lautenberg, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, virtually the whole New Jersey delegation and much of the New York delegation has worked on this legislation for a considerable period of time. This is a very important piece of legislation as is Snowbasin because this also provides for the protection of habitat of some 27 rare and endangered species and also provides the protection of a very significant watershed area for northern New Jersey and providing drinking water for approximately 25 percent of that State's population. The legislation will allow for the joint Federal-State venture to acquire lands from a willing seller and a willing buyer to be managed by a commission which will permanently protect the watershed outdoor recreational resources and open space of the area. Finally, this legislation includes, I believe, now a third title dealing with lands within Alaska, the Anaktuvuk pass legislation which was noncontroversial and passed this House before, and Koniag, what was originally a wilderness bill authored by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of our committee. As I understand it now, the wilderness provisions have been dropped for that but provides authority for selection rights. I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], chairman of the subcommittee, a question, if I might. It is my understanding that it has been amended so that the Secretary is authorized to purchase only those lands which in fact the natives actually own and not their selection rights as originally written. Is that the gentleman's understanding of the amendment?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this week I released a report from the General Accounting Office that details the failure of the Reclamation Program to recover the cost of water projects from irrigation water users. This report for the first time sets forth the total amount of the taxpayers' money spent to build 133 water projects in 17 Western States, and the status of payments received from irrigators. The record revealed by the GAO is largely one of failed repayment. Although these projects have been promoted to the public and to Congress as sound investments whose capital will be repaid, an array of statutory policies and generous interpretations by the Bureau of Reclamation have reduced repayment to a fraction of the cost. We have spent $21.8 billion on irrigation-related projects since 1902. Out of that total, only $7 billion has been attributed to irrigators for repayment. And less than $1 billion has been repaid to date. Almost half of the irrigators' $7 billion obligation has been transferred to project power purchasers, but less than 1 percent of that money has been repaid. The real message of this report is that the policies of the past have failed to recover the taxpayers' investment. Although the vast array of subsidies for irrigation were justified during the initial period of westward expansion and economic development of the West, they cannot be sustained under current budgetary constraints to reduce the Federal deficit. These projects have done their jobs. The West is settled. The projects have produced nearly $200 billion in income for their beneficiaries. At a time when Congress has told farmers in other parts of the country to give up their heavy diet of Federal subsidies, we cannot leave untouched the water subsidies benefiting their competitors--Federal irrigation farmers in the West. It is time to say, ``Enough is enough.'' Today I am introducing a bill to eliminate irrigation subsidies on new Reclamation projects. This legislation will have no effect on completed projects, or on projects where irrigators have already executed contracts to repay the Federal investment. But it will require that water users pay the full cost for water from new projects, or new units of existing projects. The Congress is about to pass legislation that curtails welfare payments after 2 years. I recognize that farmers work hard and provide for the Nation. But with all due respect, after nearly 100 years of multibillion dollar irrigation subsidies, the time for water welfare must come to an end. When the taxpayers pay to construct a water supply, project beneficiaries should pay back that investment with interest. Doing so will encourage the Congress only to fund those projects that make sound economic and environmental sense, not those that can survive only with massive infusions of Federal taxpayer dollars. I hope that other members will join me in promoting fairness for farmers and taxpayers, and that my bill will receive an early hearing in the Committee on Resources.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, apparently the Republicans have gotten the message. America's families are working harder than ever, longer than ever, and earning less than at any time in the last 20 years. The reason for that is simply that wages have not kept up. But what we now see is the Republicans fighting an effort to bring a minimum wage to a livable wage. We see it is Republicans now allowing employers to take away people's overtime, overtime that has become, unfortunately, more and more important to maintaining family wages in this country. So, what we have is, we have a dual attack on working families, and now we see also that they are going to bring us a welfare bill that will plunge a million more children into poverty that are not in poverty today. Half of those children are in working families, but because their families cannot earn a better minimum wage, because they will not be allowed to earn more overtime, those families are now going to be put into poverty because they are also going to lose what little benefits they get under the current welfare system. No; working families, working poor families, working middle class families continue to be under assault by this Republican Congress because they have not got the message these families need help.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Stephen Smale, a constituent and professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley, who received the National Medal of Science today from President Clinton and Vice President Gore. Proof is abundant that Professor Smale is one of the great minds in mathematics of that last few decades: The Veblen Prize for geometry in 1965, the Chauvenet Prize in 1988 by the Mathematical Association of America, the von Neumann Award in 1989 by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Alfred Sloan Research Fellowship from 1960 to 1962, and the Fields Medal, considered the Nobel Prize of mathematics. Professor Smale's accomplishments span a broad range of topics. He has made major discoveries in the fields of topology, mathematical economics, and the mathematics of computer computation. He also has made significant contributions in the fields of dynamical systems, geometry, and operations research. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Professor Stephen Smale on his receiving the National Medal of Science and on his lifetime of achievements.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, campaign money at its current levels in the Congress of the United States is dangerous to our democracy, it is toxic to our system, it is corrosive of our values and it is corrupting of this institution. It is time that we get it under control and that once again we allow average men and women in this country to participate. But unfortunately the legislation brought forth by the Republicans does not do that. It does not do that because in fact, as the gentleman just explained, it makes it more difficult for working men and women to participate in campaigns while making it easier for the wealthy of this country to participate. It still allows soft money, which has become the sewer of campaign money, to run unregulated and has nothing to do about that. Soft money. I bet a lot of Americans wish they had soft money. They only have hard money, money that they work hard for every day. But some people are so wealthy they have soft money. It is given out in $20,000 and $30,000 and $50,000 and $100,000 bundles to parties, to unregulated activities, to influence campaigns. What has been the result? Well, we saw what the results were with Republicans when in the first 100 days during the Contract on America, they were raising money in unprecedented levels. They threw open the doors of the offices around here to lobbyists to write legislation. They created the Thursday Club so lobbyists could come in and consult with them, but you could not get in the room unless you gave them campaign money. Campaign money bought you access to that room. Mr. and Mrs. America could not get in that room, but if you gave them enough money for their party, for their candidates, then you could get in that room and you could rewrite the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act. You could rewrite the regulations, the Endangered Species Act if you gave them enough campaign money. Congressman DeLay made it clear, if you are not on the list, if you were not contributing, you do not get to participate. What happens to the rest of the American citizenry that cannot come to Washington, that cannot give soft money, that cannot give hundreds of thousands of dollars? Under the Thomas bill, they are out of luck, but so is democracy when we start excluding those kinds of individuals.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of his amendment and also in support of his legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 3816, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1997. This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation projects in Contra Costa and Solano counties in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. I appreciate the committee's continued support for these projects. I am particularly pleased that the committee's bill seeks to resolve two important matters affecting California's Central Valley Project and the protection of water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Specifically, the committee has included language to compel San Joaquin Valley irrigators to repay over $30 million in costs related to cleaning up the contamination at Kesterson Reservoir and for studies on how to resolve the mounting drainage crisis in the Central Valley. Committee members also voted to reimpose a ban on selection of any terminus for the San Luis Drain. The drain was proposed years ago to benefit irrigators who want to convey their agricultural wastes from the Valley into the Delta and San Francisco Bay. Agricultural wastewater in California's Central Valley poisoned Kesterson Reservoir in the 1980's and demonstrated the severe pollution generated by irrigated agriculture in the West. Years later, there is widespread opposition to any drain that would dump those wastes into the Delta and San Francisco Bay. For years, the farmers whose irrigation practices caused the severe pollution problems in the Valley have evaded paying for the cleanup costs. With the language included in H.R. 3816, the delays will end, and the payment will begin. The restriction on selection of any terminus re-emphasizes the Congress' often-stated concerns about the proposed drain to the Delta. As a result of these provisions, taxpayers will finally receive long- overdue payment for the costs of cleaning up Kesterson Reservoir; the Delta and San Francisco bay will be protected from toxic discharges of agricultural wastes; and Central Valley irrigators can close the books on Kesterson and pursue innovative solutions to their drainage problems within their own area instead of seeking to export their pollution problems elsewhere. My own opposition to such a drain is longstanding and reflected in years of testimony before the Appropriations Committee in support of the restrictive amendment that once again is included for fiscal year 1997. The Bay-Delta system is the ecological and economic core of northern California. We have spent years, and billions of tax dollars-- and private dollars--cleaning it up and restoring its water quality, its fisheries, and its aesthetic appeal. Through a series of laws I have authored, including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, we have rededicated our efforts toward those goals through major reforms in the management of our water resources. We are never going to go backward and again allow others to treat our Bay-Delta system as a cesspool for their own contamination. As important as these provisions concerning repayment and the drain terminus are, they alone will not resolve the drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley. The Bureau of Reclamation, acting pursuant to a court order, is now negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the California State Water Resources Control Board and the Westlands Water District regarding the terms and conditions under which an environmental impact statement addressing drainage issues will be prepared. I have had an opportunity to review a draft of this MOU, and I note that it quite properly assigns full responsibility for payment of all costs of preparing the EIS to the Westlands Water District. Any agreement that allows Westlands to evade paying 100 percent of the expenses of preparing this EIS will not be acceptable. In addition, the MOU must strictly limit Westlands' role in the actual preparation of the EIS and in approving all or portions of the EIS. Under no circumstances should Westlands or other Central Valley Project water users be in a position of authority with respect to NEPA compliance. I have alerted the Bureau of Reclamation of my concerns regarding the pending execution of this MOU, and I will continue to insist that the strictest standards of public involvement be followed as solutions to drainage issues in the San Joaquin Valley continue to be pursued. H.R. 3816 and the accompanying committee report also raise an additional issue which I will address in my capacity as senior Democratic member of the Committee on Resources. I wish to register at this time my strong objections to language contained in the committee report accompanying H.R. 3816 (House Report 104-679), which directs that no funds be made available for the San Joaquin River Basin Resource initiative in fiscal year 1997. As my colleague from California, Ms. Pelosi, noted in her additional views on this bill, the San Joaquin study is required by law; it is not optional. The study was authorized to determine how to restore fish to the San Joaquin River, where diversions of water for irrigation have wiped out several stocks of commercially valuable anadromous fish. The Appropriations Committee is obviously determined to kill this study and prevent people from learning the truth about the destruction of fishery resources in the San Joaquin River. The effort to kill this study is important only to a small group of CVP beneficiaries who continue to profit from their subsidized water supplies at the expense of California's commercial and sport fish businesses. The San Joaquin study has been authorized by Congress and the Secretary is obligated to complete this study. The San Joaquin study should be fully funded and allowed to proceed without interference from special interests.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is important for us to examine the effect the recent and pronounced proliferation of gambling in the United States has had on us as a society. This impact study will help Americans better understand what the effects of gambling are upon our families and communities. Gambling has proliferated in part because State, local, and tribal governments faced with budget shortages see gambling as a pain-free solution to their problems. But I am concerned that such a quick-fix approach to our economic problems will make us overlook not only the long-term social problems associated with gambling, but the very fact that gambling itself is an inherently weak foundation upon which to base long-term growth and development. It is my sincere hope that through this study, we can provide local communities, States, and tribes the right tools and objective information to decide whether or not gambling is the right economic development strategy for them. But I also want to make clear that it is my understanding that neither this bill nor the commission it creates is intended in any way to be construed or used as an excuse to unfairly criticize Indian gaming. Indian gambling has, in many instances, helped Indian tribes improve reservation conditions and provide jobs where unemployment often ranges between 50 and 80 percent. In addition, it is my hope that a fair and hones study will help destroy some of the more harmful and false myths about Indian gaming. For instance, it is far from the truth that all tribes have become rich from Indian gaming. Right not approximately 130 out of 553 Indian tribes operate casino style gaming in 22 States. A few have become quite wealthy. The vast majority, however, of Indian tribes are making only modest profits. Some Indian casinos have even folded. And because Indian tribes are required by law to plow revenues back into tribal projects and not individual profits, Indian tribes have been able to better the quality of life on their reservations by using casino revenues to offer better housing, education, health care, and safety to their members. My hope is that this commission will study Indian gambling as evenly and fairly as non-Indian gaming. If this happens then I have little doubt that the study, when completed will give Americans the information we need to better understand the positive and negative aspects of gaming in the United States.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned of the untimely passing of Mollie Beattie on June 27. The many accomplishments of her too brief tenure as Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were indicative of her approach to life. She led the Service at a time when many of our fundamental protections for wildlife and the environment were under attack. But Mollie always seized life by the horns and took the rough ride without complaint, even to the end. She dealt with friend and foe alike with an honesty and straightforwardness that was unusual and refreshing. In fact, I don't believe she regarded those who challenged the conservation policies of her agency as foes, but as people who could see it her way if she just had a chance to talk it over with them. Her vision of wildlife conservation was crystal clear and far-reaching, and came not from political calculation, but from moral conviction. The bill we are passing today will rename the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness, the largest in the refuge system, after Mollie Beattie. The mountains of Alaska's Brooks Range are an appropriate tribute to Mollie. Their quiet beauty should not lead us to underestimate their inner strength. Mollie showed this kind of strength as she continued to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service despite worsening health problems in recent months. When we look at these mountains in the future we will be reminded of her spirit, her vision, and most of all her quiet strength.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Langdon ``Don'' Owen, who will be honored at a special event on July 19, 1996, when an endowed fellowship in water science and policy will be established in his name at the University of California, Irvine. During his 3-plus-year career as one of the premier minds in water resources policy in the State of California, Don utilized every scientific and policy tool available to sort out the complex and often urgent issues in the State's long and troubled water history. Environmental impact studies, cost-benefit analyses, long-term planning, multiple-discipline approaches, creative problem solving, using reclaimed water as barrier to sea water intrusion, building consensus through innovative solutions and persuasion--Don had the capability and the creativity to use all of these scientific techniques and nontraditional methodologies. Of his many career highlights, three merit particular attention for their foresight and the lessons they offer our great State as we continue to grapple with difficult water decisions: Bay Barrier Investigation, which led to the rejection of a 1954 proposal to close off the San Francisco Bay from the sea; the Water Factory, the landmark advanced wastewater treatment facility which provides reclaimed water for salt water barrier and ground water basin replenishment; and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, which brought three warring water agencies together to create a lasting partnership toward guaranteeing water quality and supply for the region. I remember Don best as an instrumental participant in the efforts to end the water wars between southern and northern California. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Langdon ``Don'' Owen, a remarkable man who has made lasting and positive contributions to the California environment and who has taught, and will continue to teach, important lessons in environmental science, creativity, innovation, and cooperation. I can think of no one better suited to represent a fellowship that will educate and empower the next generation of our environmental water scientists that Don Owen. He is truly one of the crown jewels of California, and Orange County and UC Irvine are fortunate to be associated with him.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to note today the passing of Mollie H. Beattie, the recently resigned Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Beattie was a dedicated, intelligent, and determined administrator of the Service. During her 3-year tenure, she insisted upon basing her agency's actions on two very sound criteria: scientific knowledge and the law. For that, she was criticized, second guessed, and vilified by some, but treasured and respected by far more. She had one of the toughest, but most important, jobs in Washington, and we will miss her thoughtful leadership. I would like to share with my colleagues a moving tribute to Director Beattie written by Ted Gup for the Washington Post. I know that all of my colleagues join with me in expressing our deep condolences to her husband, Rick Schwolsky, and the rest of her family and her friends in Vermont, in Washington, and through the country. [From the Washington Post, July 1, 1996] Woman Of the Woods--Mollie Beattie, a Natural As Fish & Wildlife Chief (By Ted Gup) Her obituary last week was correct in every particular: Her name was Mollie H. Beattie. She was 49, the first woman to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As reported, she succumbed to a brain tumor, dying Thursday in a hospital in Townshend, Vt. Hers appeared to be a short and public life, reduced to milestones of schools attended, positions held, survivors left behind. But obituaries, even more than most news accounts, demonstrate to those who know the subject how stark is the distance between mere accuracy and truth. Mollie, as she was known to one and all, was many things, but never a creature of Washington, never a composite of accomplishments and, most certainly, not a public being. True, she had allowed herself to be thrust into the center of an intensely public debate, selected to hold aloft the tattered banner of conservation and the Endangered Species Act, which she viewed less as an act of civil legislation than divine ordination. But Mollie's brief and quiet sojourn in Washington--less than three years--left a lasting mark on both the physical landscape of the nation and the political terrain of conservation ethics. I first met Mollie shortly after she arrived in Washington. She had consented to a series of personal interviews for a profile I was writing. I remember her pageboy haircut, her radiant face, utterly devoid of makeup, and her smart blue suit with brass buttons--a visible concession from someone who otherwise lived in jeans. Later I would speak with her about topics as diverse as tropical forests, endangered species and the National Biological Survey. No sooner had she arrived than she put the agency on notice that change was in the offing. In the long hallway leading to the director's office, there is a portrait gallery of former directors--then black-and-white photos of middle-aged white men in stiff white shirts, dark jackets and Windsor knots. Mollie chose a color photo of herself in hip waders, holding a pair of field glasses and standing at the edge of the water. Just behind her, on the opposite shore, can be seen a Kodiak bear. It was a statement that needed no elaboration. Conservationists immediately embraced her appointment as the ultimate victory. She was one of their own. But Mollie shunned the notion of being an eco-evangelist, combining hard science (a degree in forestry from the University of Vermont), a master's in public administration from Harvard, and a child's sense of awe. It would prove to be an irresistible combination for political friend and foe alike. She came by her love of nature honestly. Her grandmother Harriet Hanna was a self-educated botanist and landscape artist who knew every tree by its Latin name and, like all the girls in the family, was richly eccentric. ``Her wackiness intrigued me as a kid,'' Mollie told me. ``She seemed a little freer than everybody else.'' Mollie recalled that her grandmother would be seen outside in her nightgown at 5 a.m., toting her 4-10 shotgun in search of opossums disturbing her garden. Her home was part animal shelter, part clinic--home to lame deer, birds with broken legs and raccoons that had become dependent on her largess. ``I got her ethic that if it moves, feed it,'' and Mollie. Mollie's mother, Pat also has a fiercely independent streak and devotion to nature. Pat Beattie never told me how old she was, only that she was ``well over 65.'' She lives in a log cabin among eight acres of sagebrush south of Ketchum, Idaho. She rides horses climbs rocks and drives a Ford pickup. ``As I get older, I like the wilds better,'' she told me years ago. As a young girl, Mollie would catch mice in the winter and make them a home in an aquarium feeding them hamster food. In spring, when food was more plentiful, she would release them. And always she had a gift for persuading even nonbelievers that nature was worth saving. When she was 8 and on a family vacation in California, she came upon a house sparrow with a broken wing. Against her mother's advice, she persuaded a pilot with United Airlines to allow the bird to ride with him in the cockpit from California to New York where she intended to nurse it back to health. The bird sat on the compass of the DC-7 all the way across the country. The pilot then drove the bird to his home in Putnam County but when he showed it to his wife, the bird keeled over dead. Four decades later, Mollis was still in mouring. Her mother worried how Mollie would fare in Washington, a place where capitulation often passes for compromise. Her fears were unfounded. Mollie could be tough. Just ask Ralph Wright, former Vermont speaker of the house. ``Mollie just didn't take any crap from me,'' Wright once told me. ``She stood up to me when I tried to push her around. She gave it right back. I didn't mess with Mollie anymore.'' Mollie took a certain pride in standing her ground. She bristled when Wright once suggested she was a daughter of privilege. ``I'm as shanty Irish as he is--on both sides!'' she boasted. Still, she was conciliatory by nature, uncomfortable with confrontation, not out of weakness but out of belief that even the human habitat--perhaps especially--was big enough to accommodate all species and manner of ideas. She had a supremely quiet confidence. ``I've always worked hard never to allow my lifestyle to rise to the level of my income or my expectations of my career to be one of an endlessly accending trajectory,'' she told me shortly after assuming office. ``I've worked very hard on those two things so I'm always free to go, because I know where my lines are. If you have to put it on the line, you have to put it on the line. There's a place past which it isn't worth it.'' Heading the agency was not an easy job for Mollie. She told her sister shortly after arriving that it was a great job-- for 10 people. She maintained a dizzying schedule. Once, flying over Iowa, she could not remember if she was flying to the East or West Coast. A few months after her arrival here I asked her what was the hardest thing about Washington, expecting her to cite the withering assault on conservation issues or the late-night hours in the office. Not Mollie. ``My hardest adjustment?'' She repeated. ``The lack of darkness at night, living in a place that's never quiet. The confinement of it. I'm used to absolutely unadulterated privacy. That's hard. It's a real loss that I can't just wander off into the woods.'' Mollie was neither ideologue nor politician. She held to the same positions in her personal life as her public life. Her mother recalls that Mollie shamed her into avoiding the purchase of any colored tissues, warning that the colors were slower to break down in the soil. Fifteen years ago she let her guard down and admitted she'd gone to forestry school ``damn well determined to subvert the system.'' And she did just that. She helped to elevate the level of national debate while lowering levels of distrust and enmity that characterized much of the conservation issues in the '90s. During her brief watch at the Fish and Wildlife Service, another 15 wildlife refuges were added, more than 100 conservation habitat plans were agreed on between landowners and the government, and the gray wolf was reintroduced into the Northern Rockies. The wolf was one of her two favorite animals, the other being coyotes. ``There's something so wily and elusive and mysterious--they almost seem magical, the coyotes.'' She knew how to reach out to those with whom she disagreed. A woman--and a non-hunter at that--she presided over an agency long in the sway of the hook-and-bullet crowd. Within days of her arrival she told a gathering, ``My father was seriously wounded in a hunting accident, and my uncle still carries a bullet behind his heart.'' She then went on to talk about the decline in hunting accidents, praising hunter safety. She was one of the boys. She could talk the talk and walk the walk. She always took the broad view of nature and of man's relationship to it. ``I believe there's only one conflict,'' she told me, ``and that's between the short-term and the long-term thinking. In the long term, the economy and the environment are the same thing. If it's unenvironmental it is uneconomical. That is a rule of nature.'' Last month legislation was introduced in the House and Senate to name an 8-million-acre wilderness reserve in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge after her. Not a bad way to be remembered. Toward the end, friends and family began exchanging ``Mollie stories.'' Steve Wright recalled how five years ago he had passed her on a country road and recognized her license plate--``4STR''--for ``forester.'' He chased her down on his new motorcycle, a 1200cc Harley-Davidson, finally catching up with her at a gas station. Mollie took one look at his cycle, hiked up her skirt, threw one leg over the sissy bar and sped off. She turned around to wave goodbye as she barreled at top speed up Vermont's Route 100. Ten minutes later she returned the bike. Vintage Mollie Beattie. Mollie's last day of consciousness was Tuesday, a time when closest friends and family gathered at her bedside at the Grace Cottage, part of a tiny village hospital. Present too was Dozer, her big brown mutt with crooked ears and graying muzzle. It was said that the nurses spent as much time feeding Dozer as caring for the patients--again Mollie's talent for getting others to provide for nature. Toward the end, in a moment of solemnity, Mollie was asked if there was anything else she needed. After a second's reflection, a mischievous glint came into her eyes. ``Potato chips,'' she said. The room erupted in laughter. There was always a sense that the world had come to Mollie's door, and not the other way around. Atop her stunningly understated three-page resume was her address, a box number on Rural Route No. 3, in Grafton, Vt. She lived a mile from the nearest utility pole in a house of wood she and her husband, Rick Schwolsky, built amid 142 acres of beech, birch and maple--red and sugar--on a gentle south-facing slope. There she kept her bees and shared the honey with an occasional black bear, driving him off only when he took too much. There was no television in her house, and in the living room hung a painting of a woman standing with her hand on an oak tree. The woman is depicted speaking, but instead of words, oak leaves are coming out of her mouth. The picture was titled ``A Woman Who Speaks Trees.'' It was one of the few possessions that Mollie said really meant anything to her. I can think of no more fitting epitaph. Mollie, too, was ``A Woman Who Speaks Trees.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I feel like the old saying about closing the door after the cow has run out of the barn. The real vote was taken a few moments ago. With that vote, the flame of liberty and the flame of democracy and the flame of human rights that we set forth in the world, the beacon that we send forth from the Statute of Liberty and from our Constitution, from our Declaration of Independence, from this body and our system of government, all grew a little bit dimmer for those nations who look to us for leadership. As the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said in her closing statement, one of the real questions we have to ask ourselves and that we will be held accountable for with respect to our constituents with the vote just taken was whether or not China plays by the rules. The record today is overwhelming and compelling that they do not play by the rules. They do not play by the rules of most of the rest of the international community, and they certainly do not play by the rules that we believe should be in place with respect to free trade and fair trade, with respect to human rights, to the promotion of democracy, to the protection of intellectual properties and ideas, nuclear proliferation, and how important that is to the future of this world, to the stealing of people's technology, of nations' technologies. No, they do not have to play by those rules. That fact was ratified in the previous vote. In fact, what we told them is they can continue to play by a very different set of rules, a set of rules that they design, that they ratify and that they invoke on their own citizens and on their trading partners, rules that suggest that over the short time we have had this relationship, America continues to lose. America's workers continue to lose. Our trade deficit continues to lose. Our self-esteem about what we stand for continues to lose and be eroded. Unfortunately, this administration and now this Congress have been the great enablers of this policy, because we have always suggested that tomorrow, tomorrow we would have resolve about Tibet. Tomorrow we would have resolve about the trade deficit. Tomorrow we would have resolve about use of slave labor. Tomorrow we will get tough. That is why they have a 12-step program; because you have to deal with it today. Now, unfortunately, we are left with this good-faith effort by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], but wrong with respect to the problem; that is, if we were doing our job and this administration was doing its job, what would the verdict have been over the last year? But if we ignore these issues, if we turn the other way when they threaten democracy, if we turn the other way and enter into agreements where it is done on a wink and a nod, what they did not say, what we can say publicly they did say, they did not say but we will say they did say, how does that ensure people's rights? How does that keep nuclear weapons from going to people who threaten us as a Nation? No, this is a very sad day. It is a very sad day for the people of China who aspire to democracy, to freedom, and it is a very sad day for the people of this Nation who pride ourselves that we send forth that beacon of fair play and democracy and liberty. Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that the House chose to say tomorrow. Perhaps the President and many Members of this House should try out for the Play Annie, because tomorrow, only tomorrow will they deal with China in the serious and constant and engaged way that is demanded if, in fact, we are going to have a reliable partner for the future of this world, for the future of our trade, for the future of democracy, and the future in terms of national security. But that was not accomplished here today.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on August 5, 1987, the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Newt Gingrich, offered a privileged resolution on the House floor. The Gingrich resolution directed the Committee on Ethics to expand the investigation into another Member of the House, Representative Fernand St. Germain. At that time no one moved to table the Gingrich resolution in 1987. The House was permitted to fully debate the resolution in 1987, and the House took an up or down rollcall vote on the resolution in 1987. Times have apparently changed. When the gentleman from Florida, Representative Johnston, offered a similar resolution to ask the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to do the same thing with respect to the case of Mr. Gingrich, the Republican leadership plans to table the resolution immediately, the Republican leadership plans to block all debate on the resolution, and the Republican leadership plans to prevent a vote on the resolution. My, how things have changed and, my, how the people's House has changed.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, unfortunately this House has now been presented with prima facie evidence of the serious charges against Speaker Gingrich and the manipulation of, violations of, some very sacred laws in this country: the laws of how we conduct our elections and elect our people to represent us, the tax laws that protect the taxpayers of this country and try to encourage people to give money to nonprofit foundations to do good works on behalf of our society and the ethics rules of this House. Those are the basic laws that speak from us to the people of this country. Now we see that the Speaker has been engaged in a widespread conspiracy to intentionally violate those laws. Now we see that the ethics committee is engaged in a widespread coverup of the investigation. The ethics committee must understand what Speaker Gingrich understood about the ethics committee many years ago. It does not have the ability and has an inherent conflict trying to investigate the most powerful Member of this House. This investigation should be turned over to the special prosecutor.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in my chairman's statement about the nature of this agreement between the United States and the sovereign nations of the Indian nations of this country. To understand what this amendment does, this is not about negotiating with these tribes, as we do under the Indian Gaming Act or other such. This is to give the States a veto over the operation and the bringing in of after-acquired lands. What we now have is the ability to negotiate the terms and conditions, should the secretary end up deciding to bring those lands into trust. This completely upsets the balance.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, on this subject of timber salvage, I believe there is a unity of purpose. Those of us from the West and those of us who represent States where this is a serious issue have met time and again with the Forest Service about having a robust and necessary salvage program. But this rider took us far beyond that purpose. This rider took us far beyond a program that was designed around forest health, because this rider went from forest salvage, to timber health, to logging without laws. This is not about expediting the procedures. This is not about the appeals process. In fact, we heard in the hearing this morning that as timber salvage has gone up to 1.5 billion feet over the last couple years, appeals have been coming down. So it was going in the right direction. But impatience and the ingenuity of the Forest Service working together designed these riders so it would eviscerate all of the environmental laws that you have to deal with in providing for the protections of our forest. It did away with the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Multiple Use Sustained Use Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Forest and Range Wood Renewable Resources Act. Those were wiped out with respect to those sales. And what happened? The foresters got in there, they found a few trees that needed salvage, they found a few acres in trouble, and they started reconfiguring the sales. As the gentleman from Montana pointed out, pretty soon what we had were green sales that were not previously allowed now being allowed under the rubric of salvage, because no environmental laws were provided. So communities lost control over the forest, communities lost control over the scenic areas, communities lost control over mountainsides important to them for tourism, commerce, and for all of those reasons. Why? Because the laws did not have to be applied, because you could identify some salvage. Salvage is important and salvage is something that we have generally worked on on a bipartisan basis. The purpose of that was for forest health. This is about doing away with logging without laws.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California be given 2\1/2\ additional minutes.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Bob Dole's first campaign swing through California had a chilling message for every voter who cares about the environment. Bob Dole endorsed Governor Wilson's Ward Valley nuclear dump, although the bankrupt developer has yet to build a radioactive waste facility without serious safety problems. Bob Dole endorsed the $2 billion Auburn Dam for Sacramento Valley developers, situated smack on top of an earthquake fault, ignoring a cheaper and more environmentally safe flood control alternative. Bob Dole endorsed logging of a giant ancient, redwood forest in violation of the Endangered Species Act to benefit a giant timber corporation. And Bob Dole embraced subsidized agribusinesses who refuse to share water with California cities, fisheries, wetlands, and refuges. No surprise, because Bob Dole's campaign manager is a lawyer representing the biggest subsidized growers and polluters in our State. This is Bob Dole's scorched Earth campaign for California's environment, designed by lawyers, lobbyists, and special interests. It will be rejected by California voters because Bob Dole is no friend of our environment.