George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the matter under consideration is reform presented by the Armed Services Committee. As they were explaining earlier, we are talking about the reform that is being delayed by the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules happens to be on the floor. We cannot get a hearing on this elsewhere. The gentleman is intending to stall the proceedings. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. There are many reasons to vote against this report, and there are lots of reasons for the President to veto this bill, which he certainly will in its present form. Let me focus on just one of the important reasons why Members should vote against the conference report and that is because of the language which will lead to increased federal spending and accelerated logging in the Tongass National Forest. On November 15, the house voted 230 to 199 to instruct the conferees to drop the Tongass logging rider from this legislation. They haven't done that. What they have done instead is to return to the floor with a cosmetic coverup of more taxpayer subsidies for clearcutting this rainforest. As one of the architects of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, I can assure you that this rider is offensive to the goal of that act, which was to modernize forest management. This rider tries to turn the clock back to the days when subsidized clearcutting took priority over all other uses of the forest. The Tongass rider requires that an outdated, scientifically discredited draft timber plan shall govern management of the National Forest for the next 2 years. What that means is that logging is authorized at a rate of 418 million board feet per year, 100 million board feet over the historic average. Even though the Forest Service already has a solid scientific basis and has rejected this plan as allowing an unsustainable, environmentally destructive rate of harvest, the rider would impose the plan by congressional edict for 2 years. To add further insult, the rider has sufficiency language which is intended to overturn environmental lawsuits applying to existing sales. Even at current rates of logging, the Tongass has the Nation's most heavily subsidized timber program. According to GAO, between 1992 and 1994, the cash flow deficit to the Treasury was $102 million. If we adopt this rider, losses to the Treasury could increase by another $18 million annually. And what are we getting for the taxpayer's money? We're taking 400- year-old trees from the rainforest and turning them into pulp. I don't recall that provision being in the Republican Contract With America. I do recall that during the timber salvage sale debate on the rescissions bill last March, Members were told that the amendment jointly applied to dead, dying, and burnt trees. What has happened is that we got a lot more than we were told about, including cutting of healthy, green old-growth timber in the Northwest. Don't get fooled again. Vote against this conference report.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for all his help and cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that those of us from the bay area certainly believe that we honor our area by naming this grand refuge after Don Edwards, for all of his work. We also believe, and I think those who had the pleasure of serving with Don and his wife Edie believe that we honor our institution when we think of the grace and the courage that they both brought to public life, in their combined service in and on behalf of so many people who strongly needed the attention of the Government to help make their lives better. People knew that you could always call on Don Edwards and on Edie to provide a voice, to provide support, to provide commitment. So this is a very proud day for those of us who served with Don and Edie, and certainly those of us from the San Francisco Bay area and from California, as we think we honor ourselves as an institution and Members of the institution and our region with this naming. 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, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1253, to name the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge for our distinguished former colleague, Don Edwards, who represented the 16th Congressional District of California in this House for three decades. This is a difficult time in the history of political discourse in our Nation. Rhetoric is inflamed, partisanship persistent, and open anger barely under control as we wrestle with issues that will determine the future course of this Nation and of millions of its most vulnerable citizens. I think it can be fairly said that both parties share the blame for that condition, as do members of the press who pursue the outlandish, the acerbic, and the meanspirited remark. Don Edwards, who left this Chamber for the last time only a year ago, already seems of a different age--an age when legislators could disagree without being disagreeable, even in discussions of issues that bitterly divided them from each other. He was distinguished without being pompous, fairminded without being neutral, and patriotic without being chauvinistic. When we think of Don Edwards' legislative achievements, we often think of his work on the Judiciary Committee and especially his chairmanship of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. He was a man who could simultaneously champion the constitutional rights of our most despised citizens, while advocating strong punishment of criminal behavior. We also think of his work on international issues, and his deep devotion to peace and an end to the arms race and cold war. But Don had another great love: the preservation of the wetlands and habitat of San Francisco Bay that had been so affected by decades of development, landfill, and pollution. He fought for the creation of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and it is that refuge that we seek to name for him today. Congress authorized the establishment of a 23,000 acre national wildlife refuge in south San Francisco Bay in 1972. On October 28, 1988, President Reagan signed Public Law 100-556 authorizing the acquisition of an additional 20,000 acres, for a total of 43,000 acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service has completed the environmental assessment process for the refuge additions, and work is underway to acquire property for this regional resource. The objectives of the refuge are to protect the wildlife resources of the south San Francisco Bay area, provide wildlife-oriented recreation, and preserve a natural area in close proximity to a large urban center. The marshes, mudflats, open water, and salt ponds form an ecosystem which supports a rich diversity of fish and wildlife. It is a major nesting and feeding area for waterfowl and shorebirds, hauling out ground for the harbor seal and habitat for three endangered species. The refuge has more than 300,000 visitors annually participating in the many opportunities for fishing, animal and bird observation, research and environmental education. This great bay area resources exists, in no small part, thanks to the tireless work of Don Edwards, and it is altogether right and fitting that he be memorialized by having it named in his honor. Both those who were fortunate enough to have served with Don, and those who never got to know this consummate legislator and statesman, pay tribute to a life of public service by voting to pass this legislation and, in doing so, we help to honor this House and our profession as legislators. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Alaska in supporting the enactment of H.R. 2243, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Reauthorization Act of 1995. Mr. Speaker, a little over 30 years ago, Federal dams on the Trinity River in northern California began taking up to 90 percent of the river's flow and sending it west through the mountains to the Sacramento Valley. From there, Trinity River water flowed south, ultimately to irrigate cotton and tomato fields in the San Joaquin Valley. Unfortunately, diversions from the Trinity River Basin have devastated fish populations. The health of the Trinity River is crucial to the well-being of Indian communities and to the commercial and recreational fishing economies. H.R. 2243 will help ensure that future decisions that affect flows in the Trinity River will be based on good science and an understanding of the hydrology and biology of this complex river system. This bill will clarify the goals of the Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program and will extend the authorization of the Trinity River Fish and Wildlife task force. The restoration program and the task force are strongly supported by commercial fishing interests, including the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; sport fishing interests; native Americans who depend on the river and its fishery; environmentalists; and other stakeholders in the Trinity River Basin. The restoration program enjoys broad support because it is based on good science and because it is producing results. While I strongly support the work of the restoration program and the task force, I remain concerned that agricultural interests in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys are still interested in diverting as much water as they can away from the Trinity River Basin. In particular, H.R. 2738, Mr. Doolittle's bill to rewrite the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act, includes provisions that will undermine and perhaps nullify efforts to restore the Trinity, and perhaps even open the way for more water conflicts throughout California. California's Constitution and State laws are clearly designed to protect areas of origin such as the Trinity River Basin, and these concepts were incorporated by Congress into the 1955 law that authorized construction of the Trinity River division of the Central Valley project. I will strongly oppose proposals that violate these precepts, and I caution my colleagues to be aware of plans for further assault on these critical fishery resources. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Grand Canyon was not closed because of the failure of the budgetary process. the Grand Canyon was closed because the Republican party, which numbers 234 in this House, has not passed an appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. And the fact of the matter is, that bill was to be passed on October 1 and it is December 12 and it still has not passed. They brought it to the House twice and it was rejected on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly rejected because of its extreme nature. The Republicans are looking for someone to point a finger at and someone to blame. They ought to take some personal responsibility. They have failed to pass the appropriations bill. If the appropriations bill was passed, then the Grand Canyon would be treated by those other agencies of the Federal Government whose bills were passed and they were not affected by the shutdown. But the Republicans have failed and now they want to blame somebody. They are not going to get away with it. Pass the appropriations bill and pass a bill that, yes, is acceptable to the President of the United States and to the people of this country. That is not what the Republicans have been serving up on the floor of this House, and that is why they have been repudiated twice. Because the people of this country are not going to sacrifice these resources so that the Republicans can open them up some emergency basis. Mr. Speaker, I know it is a cliche, but we often talk about the defendant that killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. The Republicans here have failed to deliver a bill in a timely fashion. The fact is they have failed, I believe, to deliver every appropriations bill in a timely fashion for, I believe, the first time in modern history in this Congress. And the fact of the matter is that is why the Government was shut down. That is separate from the budgetary process. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we did not have a continuing resolution because the Republican leader, the Speaker of the House, threw a tantrum, and that tantrum resulted in tens of thousands of Federal employees being thrown out of work, and millions of Americans being disappointed, whether they were trying to bury their family in veterans cemeteries or at Ribbon Falls. But that happened for a single reason; because the Republican majority in this House failed to meet the mandates of the laws. It is just that simple. It is just that simple. If the budget talks collapse tomorrow or the next day or next year, if the Republicans pass the appropriations bill, then those people will not be disappointed and those people will not be punished who are employees and those who wish to take advantage of the services of the Federal Government. So they have cooked up this bill. They have cooked up this bill to cover this trail. This is dragging the tree limbs behind the horse so maybe the people who are following this will not know where they are going. They know exactly where they are going. The Republicans are planning to shut down the Government again. They are anticipating it, which suggests maybe the good faith bargaining everybody talks about is not taking place, and at the same time they are trying to cover up for the mistakes they made in the past. They were so excited to shut down the Federal Government, they did it prematurely. They did it before there was any controversy. But they went ahead and shut it down, and the American people said what the hell are they doing. This does not make sense. We have not even arrived at the point where we have a serious controversy. So now they are coming back from that position that they found was so unpopular with the American public, and now they are trying to pretend they are doing something to deal with it. The Republicans can deal with this. Pass the Interior appropriations bill. But if the Republicans are going to load it up, as they have in the past, with a lot of provisions to destroy the forest and destroy the wild lands of this country, it will not be acceptable, and the President is not going to sign it, and they will, again, have enabled people to shut down the Government of this country because of their own failures to meet their deadlines and to meet the guidelines and the laws of this country. Mr. Speaker, the only reason we are here today with H.R. 2677 is that the Republican majority failed to do its job and pass an acceptable appropriations bill to fund our national parks and wildlife refuges. The majority has twice failed to generate sufficient votes to pass its own Interior bill. And now, to cover the tracks of that failure, they have cooked up this specious and absurd piece of legislation. Let us be clear: This bill is nothing but camouflage to conceal the Republican leadership's failure to do its job. H.R. 2766 has been titled the ``National Park and Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995''. This bill does not free our national parks or refuges from anything. Instead, it raises more concerns than it answers, and it places our parks, and our citizens, at great risk. Which parks or refuges would be opened in the event of a Government shut-down? What services would be provided? Who would be liable to accidents to visitors or damage to resources? Governor Symington of Arizona tells us he thinks Federal taxpayers should indemnify States for damages and injuries caused when States operate Federal facilities. An interesting feature of the new federalism! If you are serious seeking the answers to these and other questions about this hastily developed bill, do not look to the Committee on Resources. We have held one, perfunctory hearing, on a day when the House was not even in session; multiple questions about the bill went unanswered. We held no subcommittee mark up; no full committee mark up; there is no report on this bill. And today, the House is being given no opportunity to amend this bill to address the many concerns and criticisms that have been raised about it. H.R. 2677 is really a pretty poor solution to the Republican failure to provide an appropriations bill to fund our national parks and wildlife refuges. If you were really serious about this problem, we would be better off passing a law declaring all national park and wildlife refuge employees as emergency employees for the duration of a shutdown. Instead, you are going to have States determine what parks and refuges are open in a shutdown and what services will be provided. I note Governor Symington's offer to assist with Grand Canyon National Park, but what about Saguaro National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, or any of the 17 other national park units in Arizona? The Governor did not answer that one. Let me tell you what this bill is really about. It is not about keeping the parks open, because it is so poorly drafted and ill-conceived that no one seriously believes it is going to become law. It is polemics, not policy. No, what this bill is about is the Republican leadership, who demanded that it be prematurely brought to the floor this week, wanting to immunize itself against charges that it shut down the national parks again because Republicans cannot figure out how to pass an Interior appropriations bill. And this bill is a little insurance policy, so they can go home and tell their disappointed constituents: ``Oh, I didn't vote to close the parks. Those nasty Democrats did because they refused to pass H.R. 2677.'' But the Republicans know, and the American people know, this bill could not become law in time for the possible shut-down this week, and so there is really no rush. It should be given much fuller consideration. And last, let me mention that many of those who are promoting this bill are also advocates for turning over Federal lands, including protected national parks, to the States so that miners, loggers, and others can exploit them free from the management policies developed on behalf of all Americans by past Congresses. H.R. 2677 has been conceived as a first step towards the dismantling of our parks, refuges, wilderness areas and other Federal lands. And that is exactly how passage of H.R. 2677 will be interpreted by its supporters. Do not let the Republicans play dangerous political games with our national parks! Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2677.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln]. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause (c) of rule XXVIII, I rise to announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995. The form of my motion is as follows: Mr. Miller of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4 be instructed, that in resolving differences between the two Houses with respect to subtitle b of title III of the House bill (relating to family and school-based nutrition block grants) and title IV of the Senate amendment (relating to child nutrition programs), the managers should concur in the Senate amendment insofar as such amendment does not contain any block grants relating to the school lunch program under the National School Lunch Act and does not contain any block grants relating to any family nutrition program under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 or the National School Lunch Act.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago today, the Eisenhower administration had the foresight to protect what then- Interior Secretary Seton described as ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America.'' Time has shown the wisdom of that bold action by the Eisenhower administration. As designated by Congress in 1980, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's unique wilderness and wildlife values make it a crown jewel of our refuge system. As industrial-scale oil development continues to sprawl across the North Slope of Alaska, pressure to open and exploit the Arctic refuge is intense. But while the oil development wolves are knocking at the refuge door, President Clinton has continued the legacy of Presidents Eisenhower and Carter through his commitment to preserving intact this vital arctic ecosystem. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress has ignored this bipartisan history. They have tried to sneak ANWR development through Congress under cover of the budget bill, avoiding the regular process of debate and amendment. Yet the purported value of ANWR for Federal revenues is minimal at best and its value for national energy security is even more dubious since this same Congress has authorized Alaskan oil exports. The true value of preserving ANWR's special wildlife habitat and wilderness resources for the American people are more important than ever before, transcending the worth of whatever minerals may lie below the surface. We should not sacrifice an important part of our country's natural heritage for the short-term gain of a handful of special interests. [[Page E 2300]]

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer and clearer now why Speaker Gingrich is pressuring Members of the Republican majority not to support the privileged resolution for the Ethics Committee to give the Members of this House and the American public a progress report on their 14-month-old investigation into the speaker's activities. Today on the front page of nearly every major newspaper in America we are treated to the fact that the Speaker mixed campaign fundraising and his activities as a legislator. We see now tens of thousands of dollars contributed to the Speaker by those individuals that sought his legislative favors before the Congress of the United States, people who sought his favors dealing with asbestos regulation, with cement trade problems with Mexico, where the Speaker, in exchange for those $10,000 contributions, wrote back to those individuals telling them he was terribly interested in their problems, he will look into it, or that he thanks them for their counsel on capital gains. Mr. Speaker, the House rules are clear on the ethics. You cannot engage in that kind of activity when you are raising money from individuals, and then engage in favors for those individuals later on. The Ethics Committee ought to report to this House and to the American people.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her taking this time on this important matter. Mr. Speaker, I join this debate to point out some impacts that are now starting to be felt in the State of California, and that is with our superintendent of public instruction. Delaine Easton has written to our delegation explaining her very deep concern with the cuts in the education budget, both those which are in the Health and Human Services appropriations bill and the budget cuts. California stands to lose some $260 million under the budget now being considered in the conference discussions with the administration. In her words, this is catastrophic for our State. Our State, which has the obligation to educate a very diverse school population that is beset with the whole series of problems that confront many of our large States, are simply not going to be able to do that job in an adequate fashion. When I say in an adequate fashion, I am simply talking about people having the ability to perform at grade level in the basics of education, in reading and writing and mathematics and critical thinking skills. The growing evidence is that a growing number of students across our State and across this country are simply not becoming proficient in those very basic skills, those skills which are necessary if these students are going to be able to take their place in the American economy and if they are going to be able to adapt to the changing economy once they have their place in the job market. We see evidence of this now in the State college system. In the State of California, some 60 percent of the entrants in the State college system are in need of remedial education. The frightening part is this is from I believe the top 30 percent of the students who graduate from high school in our State. So now we find ourselves spending money on some of the highest paid professors to deal with remedial education problems that should have been dealt with quite properly at the 4th and 5th and 6th grade of education. But as our superintendent of public instruction tells us, the likelihood of that now happening with these budget cuts is placed in jeopardy. That is not to suggest that this is a problem of money alone, because it is not. But it is also to strongly suggest, as she does in her communications to the members of our delegation, that the corrective actions necessary in terms of school reform, in terms of accountability, in terms of teacher proficiency, in terms of reducing the administrative bureaucracy, are all placed in jeopardy by these budget cuts. They make all of the tasks of our educational system in California far more difficult. This does not even begin to speak to the problem of the capital assets of our elementary and secondary education systems in the State of California, where we now find our children, the children that we keep claiming are so important to the future of this country, that we believe are the most important asset of the future of this country, we are now sending them to schools that are dilapidated, that are run down, that are not capable of being properly wired for new technologies, for computer access for these students, where students are constantly confronted with water coming through the ceiling. That is a whole other issue. But as the State struggles with that, if it loses this kind of program money, if it loses this kind of assistance that generates additional assistance at the State level and at the local level to provide for extra reading help and mathematics tutoring, computer equipment, special training for teachers, all of which every independent report in assessing the American education system and the California education system, done by the California Roundtable, done by our business community, to look at this educational system, none of them have suggested that resources to that system should be reduced. They have all suggested that resources going to that system should be reorganized and should be used more efficiently. But the monies that you gain from the efficient use of that reorganization should be plowed back into that system so that we can better educate a larger number of the children. Those are not the conclusions that I have reached. Those are not the conclusions that the California Teachers Association has reached or the school principals have reached. Those are the conclusions of independent blue ribbon commissions, dominated in many instances by the business community, who have looked at these systems, have looked at these institutions and said we have a major problem simply in the sufficiency of the resources available to these institutions. So when we see budgets that are passed by the House of Representatives that are talking about a 17-percent reduction over 7 years in these budgets, we are talking about a trickle down of a critical problem for local education. Interestingly enough, we find that people in my home community of Martinez and many other communities that I represent in my congressional district, they are voting to try to raise what resources they can in the community to improve school facilities, to try to provide technological improvements to the education system. But at the same time they are making this effort, that they are voting with their pocketbook, what they see is a reduction in resources from the Federal Government. It is not only unwise, but I think it flies in the face of what parents have said they want for their children. I think we have an obligation to take these programs that have been highly successful and make sure that they in fact are delivered to the students of our State and of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the gentlewoman for taking this time, and I just want to say that I think superintendent Delaine Easton makes a very forceful case to the Members of the delegation to give very, very strict scrutiny to the cuts that have been made in the education budget and to understanding the impacts as they drift down to the local district level in the State of California. We have a huge obligation and responsibility to our students to make them world class graduates, and to be [[Page H 13780]] proficient at a world class level in the basics of education and in critical thinking. All of the evidence suggests we will not meet that responsibility and obligation to our students with the educational budget and the trendlines that are put in place by the budget adopted by the House and the Senate. I would hope that the President would reject it. Should we eventually get to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, I would hope that Members of Congress would vote against that, I would hope that the President would veto it, and I would hope that we sustain his veto so we can negotiate decent levels of education funding for our children and for our families who have such high aspirations and hopes and desires for their children's education and for their ability to provide for their economic wherewithal in the American economic system. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing an increasingly dangerous game with public health and the environment. Every poll shows that Americans oppose the weakening of environmental standards. In fact, an ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 70 percent of respondents felt that the Federal Government has not done enough to protect the environment. If you ask questions about the protection of communities and employees from hazardous industries and substances, the public support is even higher. And yet the Republican leaders of this Congress, beginning with the blatant efforts to repeal much of the Clean Water Act as part of the Contract With America, have unleashed an unprecedented assault on the safety of America's communities. That assault has been promoted, drafted, and financed by the very industries and special interests that are benefiting from the Republican revolution. This conference report is a startling example of this capitulation by the Republican Congress to the special interests who have long challenged the authority of public entities to regulate the safety of the workplaces, the safety of their products, and the safety of their operations. Provisions in this report hamstring the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the laws that keep our water clean, our air safe, and our communities free from toxic dangers. This conference report bars EPA from protecting wetlands, limits EPA's authority to list new hazardous waste sites, and bars the issuance of new standards to protect the public from drinking water contaminated by radon. As a representative of a heavily industrial district where constituents have often been subjected to health hazards both on the job and in the community, this legislation contains unacceptable waivers from basic laws intended to protect the public from serious threats to health and safety. Instructions buried in the legislative history of this conference report direct EPA to: Exempt the oil and gas industry from requirements to develop accident prevention plans; excuse the oil and gas industry from reducing toxic air pollution from refineries; and infringe on the public's right to know by limiting the kinds of information about air and water pollution that industries must report for the Toxic Release Inventory. The Seventh District of California--like much of the San Francisco Bay area--has had a long and unhappy history with industries that have leaked, spilled, spewed, emitted, discharged, and released up to 40,000 tons of hazardous materials, with serious results on our community. Indeed, our region has been affected by dozens of releases of hazardous chemicals and other substances into our water, our air, and our lands. The San Joaquin River, which discharges into the fragile Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta, dumps the following loads every year into that estuary: arsenic, 12 metric tons; chromium, 66 tons; lead, 51 to 55 tons; and nickel, 51 tons. In 1993, the General Chemical Co. of Richmond, CA, released a huge amount of oleum into the air, forcing 24,000 people to seek medical attention. General Chemical was charged with numerous violations of civil and criminal law, including failure to maintain equipment, failing to provide adequate employees training, failure to provide employees with protective equipment, and negligently emitting an air contaminant. The General Chemical crisis illustrates the accuracy of the principle: prevention pays. General Chemical was required to pay $1.18 million in fines to the Government agencies and recently agreed to a $180 million settlement with thousands of its victims. For a small amount of that money, General Chemical could have had in place the safety policies and technology that would have prevented the release, and the subsequent damage and costs, in the first place. There are those who believe that industry will act to minimize risks to its employees, the community, and the environment without the compulsion of safety regulations. They are sadly naive. Time and again, in my community and around this country and indeed the world, we have learned the lesson that removing safety regulations invariably leads to short cuts and practices that endanger thousands of lives. Those who seek, in this legislation, to pare back the important work of the Environmental Protection Agency, or elsewhere attack the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the Mine Safety and Health Administration, would do well to consider this record. The Shell refinery in Martinez, CA, like other local refineries, discharged large amounts of selenium into local waterways, with potentially serious results on waterfowl and other marsh wildlife. Shell, like Unocal and Exxon, failed to meet a 1993 deadline to reduce selenium discharges. Some also charge the refineries with the release of dioxins that have been linked with cancer and other serious health problems. Earlier this year, a pipeline leak at the Dow Chemical plant in Pittsburg, CA, released dissolved chlorine hydrochloric acid and carbon tetrachloride, affecting nearby residents. The examples go on an on: Unocal of Rodeo dumped 200 tons of toxic chemicals onto surrounding communities over a 16-day period. Although plant managers were aware of the leak and workers informed their supervisors, the leak was permitted to continue for 16 days before the damaged unit was finally shut down, leaving hundreds of people with longstanding illnesses. There are a lot of people in this House who obviously do not believe our communities, our constituents, or our employees need or deserve the protection of their Government from the contamination and poisonings associated with industrial actions. I do not know if they are misinformed, naive, or swayed by the special interests who are behind the weakening of the EPA and behind this legislation. But the effect is the same. Laws written to protect our citizens and our communities are being trampled by special interest money and influence and, quite literally, people are going to die as a result of this capitulation to corporate interests. I recognize everyone in this House can point to some example of another of bureaucratic overstepping, and we need good faith efforts to minimize that kind of obstructionism and redtape. But protecting our constituents from the well-documented cases of industrial contamination and poisoning by undercutting the EPA is irresponsible and condemnable. We should vote against this legislation and stand up for the men and women who work in our factories, live in our communities, and look to their Government to provide them with a basic amount of protection and security. I urge the House to reject the conference report.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, now that the Republican manufacture of Government shutdown is over, as America's families gather for Thanksgiving, they should thank our President of the United States for hanging tough. Because he did, no longer under this agreement will Medicare be allowed to be used as a piggy bank to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. Because he did, we now have an agreement that states that this balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, none of which was accomplished under the Republican language. It also provides that we protect future generations by adequately funding the environmental programs of this Nation. Again, it was not required under the Republican language. Most importantly, the new language that the President's hanging tough allowed us to achieve last night was that it will now help working families as opposed to the original Republican plan of taxing working families. We have now the framework for negotiation among the administration and the Congress, and hopefully among the American people, about the direction that this country will take, about our future, about future generations, and the kinds of decisions that we can make to ensure that we continue a progressive and civil society, or we can turn to budget cuts that are so drastic that they reach into the inside of almost every American family and pit a younger generation seeking education against an older generation that may need long-term health care and protection from rising health care costs. The framework has now been set by the President of the United States, the negotiations begin next Monday, and I believe now we have an opportunity for truly a national conversation about the priorities of this Nation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report. On the basis of the flawed natural resources provisions in title V alone, Members should reject this misguided legislation. This is not a serious effort to balance the Federal budget. The conferees have both ignored opportunities to raise real revenues by reducing wasteful subsidies, and missed a chance to improve the management of our public resources. Instead, this conference report resorts to sacrificing a national wildlife refuge to oil exploitation, sanctioning the continued giveaway of miner-rich public lands at a fraction of their fair market value, and providing even more corporate welfare for subsidized irrigators. This bill undermines serious efforts at reform, such as those that have passed the House on a bipartisan basis in recent years, by providing inconsequential revenues to qualify their proindustry, antienvironmental policies for the sound efforts at modernizing resource management and saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. The President has remained firm in his commitment to veto any budget reconciliation bill which would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. To include ANWR in this bill not only denies Members an opportunity to full debate and amendments under an open rule, but is an exercise in futility. The majority of the revenues in this title are assumed to come from oil and gas leasing of ANWR. But don't bank on it, There's a phony bait and switch going on here. To start with, don't believe the accuracy of CBO's assumption of $1.3 billion in Federal revenues from ANWR. Those estimates were based on old projections of $40 a barrel oil, currently less than half that price. By contrast, the administration projects just $850 million in Federal revenues, assuming a 50-percent share goes to the State of Alaska. What the conference report doesn't tell you is that the State of Alaska currently is entitled to a 90-percent share under the Statehood Act of 1958, and Congress may not be able to change that entitlement unilaterally to 50 percent as the conference report proposes. If an all-but-guaranteed lawsuit reduces the Federal share to only 10 percent--a lawsuit predicted by the senior Senator from Alaska as well as the chairman of the House Resources Committee, among others--the Treasury would receive only $260 million instead of the estimated $1.3 billion, using CBO's estimates. And if the administration's lower estimates are correct, then the Treasury will only receive $170 million. That's one-tenth the amount purported to be in this reconciliation bill. The conference report further resorts to trickery in the sections of the bill addressing mining law. The Conferees pretend this is real mining reform and that the taxpayers will finally get a fair return from those who have profited royalty free from public minerals for the last 123 years. But on Wednesday of this week, 230 Members voted to recommit the Interior appropriations conference report in part because the mining provisions in the budget bill were deficient. Now, these very same provisions that Members have rejected are back before us today, insulated from amendment. The mining language purports to abolish the patenting of public lands for pennies. What the Conference Report really does is to grandfather both the existing patent applications and many existing claim holders, exempting them from any royalties. Patent holders would only have to pay for the public's resources based on the surface value of the land, which is like selling Fort Knox for the value of the roof. The few mining companies that don't make it through the patenting loophole don't need to worry much either. They would pay only the surface value for the mineral-rich land. The 5 percent net royalty is so riddled with deductions that payments would be just $12 million over 7 years according to CBO. Twelve million dollars for billions of dollars in gold, silver and other valuable minerals. By contrast, in 1993 the House passed a comprehensive mining reform bill that would have collected $90 million annually according to CBO. The conference report also includes more corporate welfare for western irrigators. It approves a prepayment proposal that will allow water districts to prepay at a discounted rate the highly subsidized debt that they owe the Treasury for reclamation projects, thereby exempting themselves from the requirements of Federal reclamation law. That means that these farmers, who have grown rich on the subsidies provided by the taxpayers of this Nation that were intended for small farmers, would be relieved from paying the unsubsidized cost for Federal water that is delivered to more than 960 acres of irrigable land. By allowing prepayment at a discounted rate, the notorious irrigation subsidies will be locked in place forever. Only the largest and wealthiest irrigation districts will be able to participate in this program. This bill also contains a very harmful and unwise decision to transfer land from the Bureau of Land Management to the State of California for use as the Ward Valley low level radioactive waste disposal facility. This issue has been under intense debate and scientific scrutiny for some time. The National Academy of Sciences review panel raised some concerns about the safety of the site and recommended additional tests before moving forward with the construction of the facility. Secretary Babbitt was involved in final negotiations with the State of California, but those talks broke apart when the State inexplicably refused to provide assurances that the safety tests would, in fact, be conducted by the State prior to construction. And since those talks broke off last month, additional scientists have admitted concealing information about radioactive seepage at another facility run by the Ward Valley contractors in Nevada. This provision is wholly inappropriate to the reconciliation bill because the tiny amount of funding involved--$500,000--is insignificant in budgetary terms. This is a fig leaf being used to drag through a major policy decision that could have serious safety implications for millions of Americans. The Senate version of this amendment was removed for procedural reasons, but it has sneaked back into this reconciliation bill. It is yet another example of the Republican majority trampling over sound science and environmental concerns to do the bidding of private industry. It is instructive to note what is not in this legislation. We could have ended double subsidies to farmers who receive federally subsidized water to grow surplus crops that we are paying other farmers not to grow. We could have eliminated below-cost national forest timber sales that cost more to administer than they raise in revenue. I offered these amendments and others in the Rules Committee which would have raised over $1.5 billion in 7 years--more than even the illusory revenues that the conference report assumes from ANWR. Simply put, the natural resource provisions of this legislation are an outrageous abuse of the public trust. The President will be fully justified in vetoing the conference report.