George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am feeling happier already.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I would like to take a moment to engage the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the committee, in a colloquy. My concern, and I think the concern of others, is that recognizing that in both the House and Senate there has been strong bipartisan support for the underlying bill of the Presidio, but as is sometimes true to their nature, the Senate has added some 34 unrelated titles to the bill, some of which have not had hearings in our committee. That traditionally has opened the door for others who seek to have the same courtesy extended to them to add bills when we are in conference. Mr. Speaker, my concern is that hopefully there will be some ground rules to the controversy of those items that might be added. I think most of the items currently in either the Senate or in the House bill are essentially noncontroversial. My concern is that as people start to see that this bill has a chance to leave the Congress and go to the President, more and more people will want to jump in the boat here, and we will start taking on water, and all of a sudden we will find out this boat cannot handle it.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from Indiana, we ought not to base this on those hard anecdotal cases. We all witnessed a young child in State court where TV cameras were there and as she was screaming for her adoptive parents, screaming and taken away and put in a car. That was in State court. We know that adoptions are tough and difficult and people change their minds and now you have got unrelated parties. This is about the forum. There is nothing that prevents the Indian court from awarding the child to those individuals. I just think you have got to be very careful here. This is not about who is right or wrong. It is about being careful with respect to what we are doing.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, hard working Americans deserve a raise. They deserve an increase in the minimum wage. Many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do not want to provide that increase in the minimum wage because they say that, in fact, people who earn the minimum wage earn much more than that because they get food stamps, they get AFDC payments, they get medical benefits. The question I have to ask is, Why should the taxpayers have to subsidize these people's jobs? Why should the marketplace not provide a livable wage so that these people can support their families, can support their children without the taxpayers subsidizing this through the welfare system? When we increase the minimum wage we save a substantial amount of money for those individuals because we no longer have to subsidize their jobs as much as we did before we increased the minimum wage. We ought to make sure that, in fact, we are not asking the taxpayers to subsidize jobs where employers simply choose not to pay the minimum wage. It is not that they cannot afford to, they just know that they do not have to pay it because the welfare system will subsidize that job. That ought not to be allowed. That ought not to be done anymore. We ought to in fact require those people to pay people for the hard work that they engage in.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on the point or order, I would hopefully advise the Chair against the point of order. The purpose of calling for a vote on the previous question is to open up the rule so that alternatives may be provided. Once that rule is opened up, it is obviously within the authors of that rule to connect unrelated matters, because you can create a rule that is self-enacting, waiving points of order against germaneness or what have you, as does the Committee on Rules. So for the purpose of us raising for the Members of the House the alternatives which might present themselves also with respect to the minimum wage, it is necessary to do so now as we discuss the rule and discuss the vote on the previous question, because if is this exact opportunity that gives the minority, which does not control the Committee on Rules, which cannot bring these matters to the floor except under extraordinary procedures, and this being one of them, a vote against the previous question, we are at liberty to explain to the House under the Rules of the House why we need to have this extraordinary procedure to present to the country an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. The gentleman from Michigan in the well has made the point that one of the results of that vote is in fact to try and raise the minimum wage of 12 million people who go to work every day, go to work year round, and end up at the end of the year below the poverty line. The vote on the previous question is the opportunity that allows this. So when the gentlewoman suggest that somehow the debate around whether or not to vote for the rule and to vote for the previous question is limited to the matter at hand, in terms of the subject matter of the bill that would then be considered after the rule is adopted, that is to limit the debate and to stifle the minority, and prevent the minority from having an opportunity to voice its concerns and to voice legislative alternatives; in this case, the minimum wage. Why does it have to be done at this point? The reason we have to ask for a vote against the previous question and why the point of order should not be sustained is because that point of order then enforces what we have been told by the Republican majority leader, and that is that he will not allow this vote to come to the floor, that he will fight it with every fiber in his body. That precludes the minority from offering that alternative. So when the Chair considers the point of order raised by the gentlewoman from Ohio----

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The same language in the original. So is the gentleman going to offer his en bloc language to Nadler?

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman would in that event require the Congress' specific authorization for the expansion of an existing refuge?

Mr. MILLER of California. If one looks at the second to the last line, it says ``create or expand that new refuge.''

Mr. MILLER of California. You are grandfathering all of the existing refuges in?

Mr. MILLER of California. They can be expanded without direct authorization. The new refuge, from today forward, if you expand that new refuge, would you require specific authorization?

Mr. MILLER of California. So if there was an inholding of 501 acres, we would have to get a direct authorization from Congress?

Mr. MILLER of California. OK. If there is an inholding of 501 acres in an existing refuge, they can do that under the Secretary's discretion in the land and water conservation? Half the heads are going up and down and half sideways.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. If an existing refuge in existence today needs to be expanded beyond 500 acres, that would not take a direct authorization?

Mr. MILLER of California. The language originally, correct me if I am wrong, it was my understanding that the language in the en bloc amendment that the gentleman was going to offer went with the creation of the refuge in excess of 500 acres. This language that the gentleman is now discussing goes both to the creation and to the expansion.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Just for the sake of a clarification so I know whether I can yield back or not, can the Chair advise me with respect to the Nadler amendment? Must that be offered prior to?

Mr. MILLER of California. What I do not understand, I am looking at two different languages. One deals with the issue of expansion.

Mr. MILLER of California. If the new refuge needed to be expanded, it would take a direct authorization?

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the Chair for indulging our concerns. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is here.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly support improvement of the National Wildlife Refuge System if it really needed it, but it does not. Much of the momentum behind this bill has been generated by sporting groups that seek to elevate the role of hunting and fishing off our National Wildlife Refuges. Now, the plain truth is that hunting and fishing are already allowed on more than half of the 508 wildlife refuges and on more than 94 percent of the 92 million acres of the System. I respectfully submit that is a lot of hunting and fishing. Moreover, President Clinton, far from closing refuges to hunting and fishing, on March 25 issued an Executive order reaffirming the administration's commitment to a diversity of recreation of refuge lands so long as it is compatible with the longstanding primary purpose of the Refuge System--fish and wildlife conservation. Some were fearful that the administration's settlement of a lawsuit regarding the compatibility of secondary uses of the refuges would result in restrictions on sporting activities. After reviewing more than 1,000 activities throughout the System, not one wildlife refuge was closed to hunting. In fact, the Clinton administration has opened more refuges to hunting and fishing in its first 2 years than did the Bush administration during its last 2 years. So, this legislation attempts to fix a problem that does not exist. And along the way, it actually undermines the ability of the wildlife management professionals of the Fish and Wildlife Service, with whom the job is properly left, to manage the many competing public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This bill is not an improvement. It is bad for the wildlife, and that is ultimately bad for the sportsmen and sportswomen whose activities depend on abundant wildlife populations. In addition, the bill contains provisions which will create overly broad exemptions for military activities on wildlife refuges, and strip refuges of reserved water rights. The substitute before the House fortunately drops a provision included by the Resources Committee to allow harmful pesticides to be used on refuges lands leased by farmers. That is a positive step, although the same provisions were contained in the long-term CR recently passed by the House and Senate. There were some other changes made that were mostly cosmetic and do not address the fundamental problems with the bill. I am also aware that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] will offer en block amendments to the bill. While I applaud the gentleman's efforts to improve the bill, these amendments do not do the trick either. No, the problems with this bill are much more fundamental. As Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said to Chairman Young in an April 23 letter concerning this bill: ``This bill is not the right way to celebrate Earth Week or the environment.'' The President has addressed the legitimate concerns about hunting and fishing in our refuges. There is an appropriate balance between wildlife conservation and public recreation. That balance already exists in our National Wildlife Refuge System. This bill will upset that delicate balance. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1675. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement of administration policy on H.R. 1675. Staement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 1675--National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (Rep. Young (R) AK and 27 cosponsors) If H.R. 1675, as reported by the Rules Committee (the Young substitute amendment), is presented to the President in its current form, the Secretary of the Interior will recommend that he veto the bill. H.R. 1675, as reported by Rules Committee (the Young substitute amendment), would greatly weaken the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to protect the National Wildlife Refuge System from harmful activities. The Young substitute amendment does not address many of the bill's fundamental problem and creates significant new problems by: Eliminating consideration of the ``public interest'' in opening wildlife refuges to recreational interests. Establishing an unneeded exemption process to facilitate expanded military use of refuge lands, despite no showing that military needs are not currently being accommodated. Calling into question the validity of existing reserved water rights of individual refuges and thus undermining the ability of the Service to provide suitable habitat for the species on such refuges. Allowing some present and future refuges to be transferred to the States as ``coordination areas'' to be managed free from the provisions of refuge law. Restricting the needed expansion of the System by imposing new limits on the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund monies for refuge acquisition. Elevating certain public uses of refuges, including hunting and trapping, into purposes of the System. Compromising the process for determining whether certain recreational uses are compatible with refuge purposes and should be allowed at any given refuge. Waiving refuge law to allow the dumping of chemicals into aquatic habitats on refuges in order to kill certain nuisance species. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Then we will do the Nadler amendment and the Boehlert amendment.