George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly straightforward. What it would do for new ITQ's is allow those portions of the quotas that are not utilized to be reallocated to other fishing interests, to, in many cases, fishermen that have worked these fishing grounds for many, many years, and the crews of the boats, to allow them to participate in the fisheries of their historical position, and fishing of those grounds should not the full quota be used. This amendment would only pertain to future ITQ's and not to those that have already been granted by the Government. I also think it makes sure that the public resources are continued to be used and widely dispersed for those who have historically been involved in the utilization of those resources, in this case the fisheries, and I would hope the committee would accept the amendment. My amendment is intended to prevent the giveaway of yet another public resource--our fisheries--as a form of corporate welfare. ITQ's are a new fisheries management tool where specific quotas are allocated to individual fishermen or corporations based on formulas established by fisheries management councils made up of industry representatives that in many cases will reap the benefits of the formula they establish. These quotas, which are allocated for free, can then be brought and sold, taking a public resource and turning it into a private commodity. The chairman's bill has taken some important steps to address the inequities of ITQ's, including a limit on the term of quota allocation and the assessment of a nominal fee of 1 percent if the quota is sold, but it doesn't go far enough however and still results in hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall profits for big, industrial fishing corporations who will receive these quotas shares for free. My amendment simply eliminates the ability to sell or lease your privilege to harvest a public resource. If you do not use it, it reverts to the Government to be reallocated to individuals wishing to enter the fishery or those who need more quota to make their shares economically viable. Why is this amendment necessary? Here are just a few reasons. In the North Pacific halibut/black cod fishery ITQ program that was implemented this year, 40 boat owners received quota shares worth more than $100 million for free. Crew members and skippers, many of whom had years of participation in the fishery, received nothing. Anyone not lucky enough to receive an initial allocation will have to buy shares from those recipients who got their shares for free. According to some quota brokers in Alaska, those shares are already selling for as much as five to eight times the actual value of the fish they permit you to harvest. Now the push is on by National Marine Fisheries Service and the large industrial fishing fleets to impose ITQ's in the North Pacific groundfish fishery, the largest dollar fishery in the United States, worth more than a billion dollars at the dock last year. The reason: After opposing plans to restrict access and control overcapitalization, too many factory trawlers entered the fishery in the late 1980's, ensuring that none of the boats could remain competitive. Now they want us to give them our fish--a public resource--to enable them to make the best of some very bad investments. Depending on the allocation formula that is adopted, Tyson Seafoods could receive quota shares worth hundreds of millions of dollars for free and then turn around and sell them. Proponents of quota systems tout their advantages. Allowing holders to fish when they want instead of in a derby fashion, they can product higher quality product, spread out their season, and stay at the dock when the weather is bad. All of these advantages will still hold true. But what does not merit nor does it require, the flatout giveaway of a public resource with no benefits to the taxpayers. Why does a corporation like Tyson--with $5 billion in annual revenues--need to receive a $200 million subsidy from the taxpayers? Because they made a bad investment of $230 million in 1993, buying Arctic Alaska, when the fishery was already overcapitalized, and now they want a bailout at the expense of the taxpayer. This is just another form of corporate welfare paid for with taxpayers' resources. My amendment would ensure that the give-away of a public resource would be prevented; that big fishing corporations would not profit at the taxpayers expense; and the stewardship of our fisheries remains in the public trust where it belongs.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and straightforward. What it seeks to ensure is that local, community-based fishing fleets continue as a valuable sector of our fishing industry. It requires that in the consideration of optimum and efficient use of resources, that we understand the overall benefit to this Nation of the sustained participation of our coastal fleets and our coastal communities and the families that are involved in the business of fishing. Mr. Chairman, it seeks to recognize, as we all should, that very often a fishing boat represents a small business. It represents an individual, or in many cases a husband and wife or two brothers, providing for their families, or fathers and sons, who are engaged in the small business of fishing. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that tries to make that compatible with the decisions that the councils have to make about the sustainability of the resources and takes into account the economic impacts on communities and on coastal fleets. I think it is a good amendment and I would hope that the committee could support it.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado has quite accurately reflected the content of H.R. 629. It had bipartisan support coming out of the committee. We continue to support it. Mr. Speaker, if enacted this legislation would allow the National Park Service to enter into cooperative agreements with private and not- for-profit entities in order to construct, maintain, and operate a visitors center on private land outside park boundaries of the Rocky Mountain National Park. This would be the first ever such public/ private venture to address a park need. Rocky Mountain National Park is the No. 1 tourist attraction in the State of Colorado with an annual visitation of almost 3 million people. Currently, almost 1 million of those visitors enter the park through the Fall River entrance and do so without benefit of a National Park Service facility. Such a facility would greatly enhance the stay of the park visitor by providing information on camping, trails, park rules, safety tips, and historical data on the terrain and wildlife. There has been much local input on this proposal and I believe all parties have addressed the foreseeable issues. I look forward to the outcome of this joint venture as I believe it may be a model for similar agreements in the future.

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, again, on this legislation, H.R. 1743, the Water Resources Research Act reauthorization, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], the subcommittee Chair, has accurately described the bill, and it has bipartisan support, and I believe bipartisan support both here and in the Senate. We would urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1743, a bill to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1984. This legislation extends the authorization of this important program for 5 years and also provides new flexibility for the program. New cost-sharing requirements are also specified in this legislation. The Water Research Program has provided us with extraordinary benefits for 30 years. We now have water research institutes in every State, as well as in the Virgin Islands, Guam, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The program supports our educational institutions by training engineers and scientists skilled in all aspects of water research and management. With help from the Water Research Program and the State research institutes, we have improved our capability to manage floods and to plan community growth to avoid flood damages. We have improved our ability to clean up chemical contamination of our water supplies. And we have trained hundreds of scientists, technicians, and engineers to help us solve complex water management problems. The Water Resources Research Program authorized by H.R. 1743 is a cost-effective and inexpensive program. Costs of operating the program are shared with non-Federal interests. The program provides valuable research that is useful to local and State water managers throughout the Nation. The water research program has given us years of service and deserves our continued support. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1743. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, which is a very good example of a private-public partnership that benefits the taxpayers, private industry, and the environment. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] for her work on this legislation. She has garnered partisan support for this legislation. We urge support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of the compromise version of H.R. 1715, a bill that addresses the Supreme Court decision in the Adams Fruit case. The bill as originally introduced would have prohibited farmworkers from both receiving workers compensation and suing in court for violations under MSPA [the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act]. The compromise bill we are considering today would achieve that purpose, while at the same time providing some needed safeguards for farmworkers and some deterrence to would-be violators. I offered in committee an amendment to strengthen the deterrence in the bill by addressing egregious violations of the law, and I am satisfied that the essence of my amendment was incorporated in the compromise version of this bill. The bill changes the current statutory damages from $500 dollars to $10,000 dollars for egregious cases in which a worker was injured or killed in an accident where alcohol or drugs were involved, where an employer has a history of violations, where the employer willfully makes a vehicle dangerous, or where the employer uses an unregistered farm-labor contractor. The increase in statutory damages is very much needed to provide a deterrence against violations. As we all know, farmworkers are some of the most exploited workers in America: kids are used in the fields in clear violation of child labor laws; workers are crammed into grossly unsafe, uninsured vehicles that have no seats or safety belts and are injured, maimed and killed; work-cite sanitation is poor or nonexistent; and wages are skimmed by unscrupulous farm-labor contractors. [[Page H 10092]] Enhanced penalties in H.R. 1715 provides needed deterrence to some of these violations, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], for yielding and for his help during these negotiations, and I also thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from the list of cosponsors of H.R. 2066. [[Page H 10112]]

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, senior citizens can choose their doctor, their hospital, any kind of medical care they went under current Medicare rules. Why are the Republicans offering more choice; why are the Republicans forcing more choice? Because the Golden Rule Insurance Co. gave $157,000 to GOPAC, the political arm of Speaker Gingrich, another $45,000 to Speaker Gingrich's two campaigns. They sponsored Speaker Gingrich's TV show, and they have given almost $2 million to Republican causes. That is why they want to force senior citizens into medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, if you have money, you have access to the Republican plan for Medicare. The doctors met with Speaker Gingrich in the middle of the markup of the Medicare bill in the Committee on Ways and Means. They got $3 billion--$3 billion. Golden Rule gives money to campaigns; they got millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, in businesses. Senior citizens approached the chairman of the committee yesterday and asked about the future of Medicare. They were arrested. I say to my colleagues, if you have money, you can cut deals. If you need health care, you get arrested.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I press my point of order that this amendment is not germane to the bill being amended and, therefore, violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules, the general rule of germaneness. As the gentleman has pointed out in his arguments on behalf of his amendment, this is about amending or providing an exemption to the National Environmental Policy Act and not about the facilities of the authorizations under this act or under this title, and, therefore, I believe it to be a nongermane amendment and, therefore, out of order for consideration at this time.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mr. Johnson], for taking this time to pay respects to Jim Kennelly. I did not know him in his legislative capacity, but the stories and the testimony of his accomplishments are legend about his service in the State legislature. I had an opportunity to know him as Barbara's husband and had a couple of chances to travel with him and to spend time, and he was a wonderful, wonderful human being. He was very generous in his time to other spouses on the trip. He was insightful about politics. He was a very good storyteller. He made people very comfortable to be around him. His company was enjoyed and sought by those who would share any kind of time with him. I just want to express my sympathies and concerns and my prayers and those of my wife Cynthia for Barbara and for the children. Jim was a wonderful husband and a wonderful friend and a wonderful person to know I thank the gentleman very much for taking the time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit the Interior appropriations bill to conference and to restore the House language regarding the mining law patent moratorium. If the conference report on the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations bill were a car, it would be recalled. What it purports to do in the name of budget cutting is obscene. Not only is this appropriations bill packed with authorizing legislation as in a spending bill--in clear violation of House rules--but, it also shamelessly and against the public interest runs rampant in overturning sound environmental policy. There are simply too many flaws in this conference report to describe each one of them, but, one of the most offensive is the elimination of the mining patent moratorium. Despite the fact that the House has repeatedly voted for a moratorium on giving away public lands to mining companies, the conference committee adopted language that replaces the patent moratorium with a new Senate provision that is even worse than that which currently exists under the old 1872 law. This is not an insignificant concern. It is one--if not the primary-- reason the President has said he will veto this bill. Unless the patent moratorium is restored, over 600 patent applications worth more than $15 billion in mineral resources, currently blocked by last year's moratorium, will be given away for less than $700,000 for whose benefit and under the banner of what kind of conservatism. Unless the conference report is changed and the moratorium imposed-- mining companies--many of them foreign-owned--will get title to an additional 230,000 acres of the public's land for a pittance of their real value. Who does this benefit?--the struggling middle class?--is this an element of the contract for America?--what kind of conservatism is this? Ending the moratorium also means that all 330,000 mining claims--or another one million acres of public land--will be eligible for patenting or disposal to the mining industry. People often ask us Why can't you run government more like a business? Our inability to reform the 1872 mining law is a perfect example of both why they ask us this question and why we can't run government more like a business. I can think of no business that gives away its assets--for free-- without taking any kind of a payment. But, the Federal Government is [[Page H 9693]] forced, through actions such as this legislation to virtually give-away public lands that are rich in gold and silver to mining companies. We don't even reserve a royalty or any other sort of economic payment to the public--it's just finders keepers under the 1872 mining law. We have been trying for years and years to get this archaic law changed--but the mining industry and its friends in Congress have been successful in blocking those attempts. So, we have been forced to impose a simple moratorium to stem the flow of valuable mineral properties from the public troth while we try to get meaningful reform enacted. Just this year, because Congress has failed to reform the 1872 Mining Law, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has been forced to sign away land worth more than $1 billion for a pittance of its true value. For example, the Secretary was recently compelled to sign away ownership to 109 acres of public land in Idaho containing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of a mineral called travertime to a Dutch owned corporation for the paltry sum of $275. This looks like letting business run government for business's purpose--these are public lands, these are public assents. This legal piracy of public resources must stop. If the Republicans are serious about reforming Government, and not just interested in consolidating and moving more and more of the Nation's capital resources--upstream--to the already rich and wealthy, then they should not stand in the way of reforming the 1872 Mining law. We should not give away permanent ownership of the public lands. We don't do that in oil, gas or coal leasing. But, the hard rock mining industry claims to be different than all the other mineral resource and extractive industries. They claim that patenting is critical to their ability to function. But, this is a bogus argument. You do not need a patent to mine. It is absolutely irrelevant to the question of mining--unless you are trying to avoid paying a royalty if and when Congress gets around to changing the 1872 mining law. No State gives private companies title to its resources, and yet the companies mine on State land. I know of no private citizens who give mining companies title to their land for mineral exploration and production, and yet they mine on private lands. So why don't we change the law? It's simple--money talks, nobody walks--The mining industry spent a small furtune last year and again this year to prevent reform of the 123-year-old Mining law of 1872. It is cheaper for them to pay the lobbyists and make the campaign contributions than to see real reform enacted to safeguard the taxpayers who own this gold. As a result, we can look forward to many more giveaways like the ones Secretary Babbitt signed earlier this year--trading a fortune in public gold for a pauper's ransom. If we do not stop patenting, through mining reform or through a patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform--we will see more and more public land given away in the years to come. Unless we keep the patent moratorium in place, these lands will be given away to mining corporations that want to avoid paying a royalty. We cannot be party to the continued looting of the Treasury by foreign gold companies and others. So we should include a patent moratorium because as a practical matter, we should not leave the 1872 law, and particularly the patenting process, on the books should no action be taken on comprehensive reform. If we must again defer until next year--or the year after--comprehensive reform, we should hold the program in abeyance. For while we may not have agreed on the precise design of reform at the point, virtually everyone agrees drastic reform of the mining program is necessary. So, I urge the House to recommit the conference report and insist on adoption of the House language. If we cannot achieve real reform, we will at a minimum stop the giveaway of 15 billion dollars' worth of public resources until such time as we do achieve reform.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the lyrics to an old song say, ``First you say you will, then you say you won't. You're undecided now, what are you going to do?'' This apparently has become the theme song for the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. One minute she says she is going to have an outside counsel, then she is not going to have an outside counsel. She said in 1988, the House should have an outside counsel when the committee investigated Speaker Wright, and now she is saying maybe she did not mean to sign that letter or agree with it at all. What is it? The fact is that the only way this inquiry of Speaker Gingrich can be brought to a conclusion is with an outside counsel. The press tells us, the Manchester Journal and Inquirer tells us, that when the chairman of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct visited with the Speaker to inform him that in all likelihood there would be an outside counsel, he hit the roof and said, ``You are going to wreck the GOP revolution and you are going to bring me down.'' Well, as he said to Speaker Wright, if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear from the outside counsel. Let us maintain the standard that the House has had since 1979 and appoint an outside counsel and let us get this investigation to a conclusion.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska to delete section 109 of H.R. 402. That language was added by the other body without public hearings and was intended to intervene in pending litigation. But the Senate did not do their homework. This provision generated significant controversy, especially amongst the affected citizens of Kodiak, AK. Moreover, this technical amendments bill was an inappropriate vehicle for controversy. The gentleman from Alaska and I had worked over two Congresses to develop a consensus on this legislation only to be undercut, in my view, by the other body. I am especially pleased that, if this amendment passes, the plaintiff in this litigation has agreed to lift a claim to lands on Kodiak which are sought for acquisition by the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if Members want to know how we [[Page H 9623]] make cynical voters; if they want to know how to make people hate the system, it is that we mislead them about what the system did. Nobody was mistreated under this system. Those people that voted for 187 and those that voted against 187 are being protected throughout this process. The initial question of whether or not we should enjoin the law before we find out its impacts and who it will hurt and is it the Constitution, one individual deciding that is not a crime. Three individuals may be better or worse, but that is not why we are here today. We are here today because people have chosen to trash the Government rather than explain the Constitution and explain to people that sometimes might does not make right. We are one of the few countries where that is the case. Mr. Chairman, 5 million people voted Their views are being acknowledged. We have changed our attitudes here. We have changed the laws on immigration. The State legislature has done the same, and a lot of things have happened since that vote, but it does not necessarily mean that that vote is constitutional. People have a right to seek a review of that. We would be a better government, we would better serve the people if we leveled with them that there is a process, and whether it is the work product of the initiative in California, where people properly go to the polls, or whether it is the work product of this Congress, there is a means by which it is reviewed so that people can protect their rights and enforce others' responsibilities. It is the judicial system. And that was not abused in this process. Mr. Chairman, the judge did nothing willy-nilly. And I would not like to be this judge, overturning the views of a popular side of an election. But judges are there because they discharge tough issues, tough questions that are brought before them. They have to make that decision. We would probably want to have a hearing on it. We would probably want to send it to interim. We would want to hold it over till the next session, but that judge had to rule, and now the system is engaged. We would be better served if we discussed that rather than trying to refight proposition 187 on the backs of the judges and the courts and the system in this country, because I think all we do there is we mislead our constituents. We mislead the voters and mislead the citizens about what they can and cannot do under the Constitution of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, what is happening here is the trashing, the absolute trashing of the Government for political motives, which is about trying to lead people to believe that somehow they have been screwed in the process, because somebody exercised their right on the court.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr., mayor of the city of Vallejo, CA. On December 5, 1995, Mayor Intintoli will have completed 8 years of public service as mayor of the city of Vallejo. I have had the good fortune of representing the cities of Vallejo and Benicia in the Seventh Congressional District since 1993, which was when I met Tony Intintoli. Right after I started representing Vallejo, the Base Realignment and Conversion Commission put the Mare Island Naval Shipyard on the closure list, which was a major economic blow to our community as Mare Island Naval Shipyard has been the cornerstone of the Vallejo community for 147 years. On the heels of this devastating news of closure in 1996, Mayor Intintoli immediately put together a team of community, political, and military leaders which very forcefully and eloquently fought the closure. When that effort did not succeed, the mayor immediately transformed the focus of the group to future conversion of the base. He skillfully brought together the community to adopt a closure plan in record time, and convinced the city council to hire the Urban Land Institute to provide a future blueprint for the city. Vallejo was the first base-closure community to address the myriad of social impacts from a closure and has just completed a ``Blueprint for Action--A Community Responds to the Closure of Mare Island Naval Shipyard''. Mayor Intintoli has effectively lobbied State and Federal legislators for conversion assistance, and has worked tirelessly with the Department of Defense to obtain the most favorable lease conditions for the city and the shipyard. The city has been successful in bringing the first civilian tenants to Mare Island--before closure--and providing the first jobs that will lead to the economic revitalization of Vallejo and the region. During his tenure as mayor, the doors of the Vallejo City Hall were always open and residents felt they were part of the process. The makeup of city commissions became more balanced and reflective of the diverse ethnic makeup of the entire community. Mayor Intintoli improved the dialog between city hall and neighborhood organizations and focused on community concerns. His style of leadership was to work with and build consensus with constituents and his colleagues on the council. During his two terms as mayor from 1987-95, the city focused on substance abuse prevention and was awarded a $3.2 million grant from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation to implement a comprehensive program to address the issue. This was the first time representatives from the entire city worked in a collaborative effort to address a problem that affects every individual and family. The Fighting Back Program has received numerous awards for its innovative efforts which can be credited to Mayor Intintoli's support and encouragement. I am proud to call Mayor Tony Intintoli my friend and wish him all the best in his early retirement. I know this is the start of a beautiful friendship.