George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, in responding to the gentleman's point on the point of order, I would point out the fact is what we have shown, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] may not like the long recitations, but they happen to be the law of the land, is that the Forest Service has this information for every acre of land; for every parcel of land; for every sale they promote. So to suggest that they do not have it for 3,000 acres, when in fact they have it for every acre, is simply ludicrous on its face.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, inclusion of the patent moratorium is more important this year than at any other time in the past. As Members will recall, the House voted by a 3 to 1 margin in 1993 to reform the mining law of 1872, a Civil War era law that encourages the giveaway of billions of dollars of gold, silver and other minerals that belong to the American taxpayer. With the support of Members like Newt Gingrich, we passed a good bill, a tough bill, but unfortunately the conference committee with the Senate was unable to produce a final bill. And now the Senate, under Republican leadership, is considering a weak bill that will make minor changes that leave the taxpayer and the environment the losers while the mining conglomerates make off with the gold. The Craig bill, if enacted, will result in no royalties, no environmental clean-up, and no reform, which is exactly how the industry lobbyists wrote it. One of the key issues in the mining reform debate is that of patents. Under the 1872 law, which governs mining for precious metals, like gold, silver and platinum on Federal lands, miners who discover one of these metals are entitled to a patent--or fee-simple title to the land from American citizens and the mineral wealth it contains. Since 1872, the United States has let over 231 billion dollars' worth of mineral assets slip through our fingers in this manner, charging minimal costs for the land transfer and no royalty whatsoever. We should not give away permanent ownership of the public lands. We don't do that in oil and gas or coal leasing. The states don't do it in hard rock mining. I don't think that many private individuals do it. Although the mining industry claims patenting is critical to its ability to function, 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. And while we are discussing the States, I should point out that mining companies pay royalties to States and private landowners, too, unlike on Federal lands. The mining industry spent a small fortune last year to prevent reform of the 123-year-old mining law of 1872. It was 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 such cases in the years to come. The House Appropriations Committee unwisely has not included a moratorium this year. In fact, the committee report includes language which foolishly advocates the rapid transfer of patents presumably to assuage the mining industry which would prefer to continue freeloading off the public lands. If the Department complies with the report language and expedites approval of the 233 patent applications in the pipeline, we will in effect give away 15.5 billion dollars' worth of gold and silver to mining conglomerates. Talk about corporate welfare. I urge Secretary Babbitt to ignore the report language and to continue the careful and cautious route he has pursued in the past. 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 a vote for the amendment. If we cannot achieve real reform, we will at a minimum stop the giveaway of 15.5 billion dollars' worth of public resources until such time as we do achieve reform.

Mr. MILLER of California. The Chair sounds like Judge Ito.

Mr. MILLER of California. I know you are. I want to make sure you have all the evidence.

Mr. MILLER of California. Can we be heard on the point raised by the gentleman from North Carolina?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] made the point that there is a huge backlog in road construction in the Forest Service. This is about new roads. This is about continuing a program that lost the taxpayers $330 million in fiscal year 1994. This is about the taxpayer, and this is about staying out of the roadless areas because those are the most expensive sales. That is where the litigation is. Mr. Chairman, we are cutting back on visitor centers, we are cutting back on recreation in this bill. We ought to [[Page H 7130]] take that money, and use it, and put it where the people can enjoy it, prosper from it, and the local communities can do the same. We should not be engaging in building new roads and to roadless areas. This amendment itself will save about $18 to $20 million off the current program. That is a huge whopper of a loss. What the Forest Service seeks to do is like if McDonald's said they wanted to build a hamburger stand on the Moon, and they had to use a space shuttle to get its customers there. This is outrageous. Private enterprise ought to be building these roads, they should not be coming. It is $300 million subsidies. They have been against subsidies all the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to preclude the Forest Service budget from building roads and conducting timber sales in roadless areas of our national forests. Mr. Chairman, many popular Forest Service programs take significant hits in the bill before us. The budget for land acquisition drops from $65.3 million in fiscal year 1995 to $14.6 million, a 78-percent reduction. The budget for construction of recreational roads, trails, and visitor facilities is $72 million less than the administration's request. Construction of Forest Service visitor facilities is down 63 percent and trail construction is cut by 85 percent from the current fiscal year. But in the midst of these draconian cuts, the committee has somehow found it desirable to pile on taxpayer subsidies to provide corporate welfare for some of their friends in the timber business. The bill provides $57 million in direct subsidies for construction of timber roads and $50 million more in indirect subsidies through the purchaser credit program where we trade national forest trees for roads to the clearcuts. The bill also provides $189 million for timber sales management which is about $31 million or 20 percent more than the administration's budget request. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this bill devastates the budget for campgrounds, visitor facilities, and trails for people to enjoy and use our national forests. Instead, what the people get is what they don't want--more clearcuts and bigger subsidies for those in the timber industry who become dependent upon taxpayer handouts. As the Congressional Budget Office has explained, in seven of the nine National Forest System regions, annual cash receipts from Federal timber sales have consistently failed to cover the Forest Service's annual cash expenditures. In other words, the Forest Service Timber Program is below-cost, which means that the Forest Service spends more money annually for roads and administrative expenditures than the Treasury receives in revenues. No private business could stay in business managing its assets in such a cavalier manner. Why should Members care? According to CBO, we should care because below-cost timber sales lead to an increase in the Federal deficit, wasteful depletion of Federal resources through uneconomic harvest, unwarranted destruction of roadless forests valued by many recreational visitors, and Government interference with private timber markets. Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy amendment reduces, but does not entirely eliminate, below-cost sales. It is a modest amendment intended to put the brakes on the most expensive, money losing sales by preventing new roads and timber sales in major roadless areas. Mr. Chairman, in a bill where the majority is demanding significant sacrifice in the name of deficit reduction, it is indefensible to heap more money than even the Forest Service says is necessary on taxpayer subsidies for timber sales and road building. To increase environmentally destructive corporate welfare at the same time the bill is cutting the budget for people to use and enjoy our national forests should be a serious embarrassment to the majority. I urge Members to vote for the Kennedy amendment that will save the taxpayers money and preserve the increasingly rare roadless areas in our National Forest System.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members, the press, and the public should understand the cynical and dangerous strategy being pursued by the Republican majority on this bill. The Republican plan, like this legislation, is not designed to improve management of the Department of the interior, or even the laws and policies administered by that Department. Instead, it is intended to wreak havoc with the environmental laws, the resource management laws, the species protection laws that we have implemented over the past quarter century to protect the land, the health and the safety of the American people. The Republican majority offers up a new rule, a more restrictive rule, to cut off debate and limit our ability to learn what is in this bill or to offer alternatives to it. The Republican majority claims this new rule is designed to make the House proceed more efficiently. That is untrue. It is designed to allow them to undermine, subvert, and repeal basic environmental, management and safety laws without giving dissenting Members--and the public--a reasonable opportunity to learn what their legislation would do. The cynicism of this approach can be demonstrated by reading a memo, dated July 6, 1995, from the chairman of the Rules Committee to the Republican leadership. In this memo, which I move be placed in the Record, Chairman Solomon discussed several different ``alternatives to restrict rules on appropriations bills.'' The memo identifies several procedural ways for the majority to curtail the debate and prevent a full airing of the issues and policies they are attempting to impose. I find it especially intriguing that one of the Republican strategies is to ``Limit Legislative Amendments.'' Chairman Solomon notes that, ``The more legislative policy debates that are injected into the appropriations process, beyond mere cutting amendments, the longer the amendment process on each bill will take.'' That is, of course, true, because appropriations bills are not supposed to contain authorizing language under the rules. This sweeping authorizing language is contained in these bills only because the Republican majority has waived points of order against them, and because Republican majorities have voted to include them in the bills in the first place. It goes without saying that Democrats lack the votes to include authorizing language, to delete authorizing language, or do much of anything else in these bills. They are slashing away at the scientific knowledge on which we base sensitive resource decisions, placing in jeopardy our ability to plan management practices to minimize the impact on communities. They are compromising law enforcement capability even as over 20,000 crimes from murder to resource violations occurred on Fish and Wildlife Service lands last year. They have crippled the ability of the Park Service to enforce the law creating the Mojave National Preserve, which passed this Congress by overwhelming margins last year. They have handicapped the effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act by depriving the EPA of funds needed for prelisting actions that could minimize more drastic action down the road. They have killed the Urban Parks Program that serves dozens of needy communities and was expanded by last year's crime bill. They have dissolved critical assistance to both Indian children and adults to assist their education in public schools. This bill undoes major changes enacted just last year to improve self governance by Indian tribes. It crippled the Land and Water Conservation Fund by slashing funds for acquiring lands by nearly 80 percent. Altogether, this bill makes over 70 substantive changes in law, most without a day of hearings by the authorizing committees to see what impact those devastating cuts and changes would have on the ability of agencies to do the jobs they are charged with doing for the American people. This is not rational law-making; this is slash and burn, shoot- from-the-hip legislating and it is bad for America. I know Republican Members will say that Democrats included authorizing language when we were in the majority, and they are right. The difference is that the authorizing committees regularly objected to such practices. As an authorizing chairman, I vigorously objected to that misuse of the legislative process, as did other authorizing chairman. We changed the rules to limit authorization law changes in appropriations bills. By contrast, the new Republican majority came into office in January having denounced the so-called tyranny of Democratic rules, only to issue restrictive rule after restrictive rule. They have made a mockery of their pledge of open debate and open rules. Indeed, Republican authorizing chairmen are co- [[Page H 7024]] complicitous in this backdoor strategy for changing the law, and the Republican rules are preventing us from using the House Rules they wrote to block this unconscionable practice. Now, as if this is not cynical enough, let me quote from Chairman Solomon's memo again. He writes that if his various schemes for limiting amendments and debates on these terrible bills are ``not sufficient,'' ``the leadership can always seek a second rule''--as they are doing today--``to further restrict amendments (as was done on the foreign ops bill) and blame Democrats for the need to do so.'' ``And blame Democrats for the need to do so.'' What a cynical and deceitful strategy. Let us remember, first of all, that many of the amendments that are delaying this process are being offered by Republicans, not Democrats, including the one by Mr. Gilchrest concerning the use of volunteers--an amendment that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support because the original restrictions voted by the Republican majority were so punitive and counter-productive. Other Republican amendments, like that by Mr. Neumann, are so terrible that they prompt extended debate, including the opposition of the Speaker himself. Second, let me note that the reason so many amendments are needed is that these bills are bad legislation, written with a hand on the bible of right wing extremism and an eye on the calendar, noting how late we are in the legislative year without a single appropriations bill through the process--not because of Democratic obstructionism, but purely because of the mismanagement of the process by the Republican majority. So now, the Republicans who castigated Democrats for allegedly restrictive rules and who promised open rules, are not only bringing initially restricted rules to the floor, but are plotting even more restrictive rules on sweeping legislation. And no one should be confused as to why the Republican majority seeks these new rules: it is because they want these sweeping changes to fundamental laws to take place without public scrutiny and without full debate. They do not want the press, or the American people, to know what is in this legislation. They want to proceed with the fiction that this is a dry bill of numbers that appropriates money for fiscal year 1996 when, in fact, it is anything but; it is an insidious and extremist bill that rips up the ability of this government to continue to manage our resources, waste taxpayer money, or protect our citizens. And it is for that reason that we oppose this legislation and seek to modify it through the regular amendment process. And because the Republicans are embarrassed to have their handiwork found out, and because they want to prevent good faith efforts to change their flawed product--by Democrats and Republicans alike--that they come forward with this rule to clamp down on the debate and steamroll their flawed product through the House. The memorandum referred to follows: [Memorandum--July 6, 1995] Re alternatives to restrictive rules on appropriations bills To: The Republican Leadership. From: Jerry Solomon. So far, the majority leadership and Appropriations Committee have not taken advantage of existing House rules to manage and control the amendment process, even though the Rules Committee has followed the Majority Leader's guidelines on appropriations rules to allow for a greater management and control. These include opening appropriations bills to amendment by title instead of by paragraph, and by encouraging Members to pre-print their amendments in the Record to receive priority in recognition. This should have paved the way for unanimous consent agreements and motions, if necessary, to limit debate on particular amendments and amendments thereto, and even to limit debate on further amendments to a particular title. Under House Rules, once such a motion has been agreed to, only pre-printed amendments are allowed upon the expiration of the time limit, and such amendments may only be debated for 10 minutes--5 minutes for and 5 minutes against. In addition, the Leadership has not exercised the Majority Leader's new prerogative under the Rules to offer the motion to rise once House is considering limitation amendments at the end of the process. This could be done, for instance, after allowing two limitation amendments per side, with time agreements on each. Below is a listing of suggestions for alternative approaches to restrictive rules: Time Limit Agreements--The majority managers of appropriations bills should make a greater effort to seek unanimous consent to limit time on amendments, including amendments thereto. Time Limit Motions--The majority managers should take greater advantage of moving reasonable time limits on amendments, and, if necessary, on further amendments to a title. None has been moved to date as far as we know. Such motions on titles would still allow for ten minute debates on pre-printed amendments after the time has expired for debating priority amendments offered by both sides to the title. Limiting Legislative Amendments--The more legislative policy debates that are injected into the appropriations process, beyond mere cutting amendments, the longer the amendment process on each bill will take. A greater effort could be made by the Leadership to limit legislative provisions and amendments on appropriations bills in favor of debating and voting on these through the regular authorization process. In this way, the Leadership could reserve such debates in the appropriations process to only those major issues which the Leadership strongly feels must be attached to appropriations bills. Limit Dilatory Motions--Special rules could confine the minority to not more than one motion to strike the enacting clause per bill and also authorize not more than one motion to rise per day by anyone other than the majority manager or the majority leader. At present, motions to strike the enacting clause are in order at any time there has been a change in the bill, i.e., an amendment adopted; and motions to rise are in order at any time after there has been only one intervening speech since the last such motion. Second Rule--If the above suggestions are still not sufficient in expediting action, the Leadership can always seek a second rule to further restrict amendments (as was done on the foreign ops bill), and blame Democrats for the need to do so.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this rule. It was said by the gentleman from California in his opening statement that this rule was here to rescue this important bill from Democratic tactics. Let me just say on last Thursday we had 14 amendments offered on the floor of the House, 8 of which were Republican amendments. The total time for Democratic debate on those amendments was 3\1/2\ hours. We spent over 2 hours just on the Gilchrest amendment alone, the Gilchrest amendment, which was to remove legislation from this appropriations bill dealing with the use of volunteers in the environmental field by the National Biological Survey. So most of the time was in fact spent trying to figure out how to remove legislation that was unacceptable both to Republicans and to Democrats. But because of that debate, we now see that all of a sudden debate on this bill, on issues ranging from endangered species to the National Endowment for the Arts, are now collapsed into 20 minutes or 10 minutes on these most important issues. This is clearly a gift to those who do not want to take the heat for the policy considerations that they want to have this bill enact. They do not want to take the heat for the changes in the law. If you can get this down so later tonight at 10 or 11 o'clock at night we are spending 10 minutes a side to debate these issues, then you can go on about your business. It is the wrong way to legislate. The House deserves better, the members of the authorizing committees who are disenfranchised by this effort deserve better, and the American people deserve better about these kinds of major changes being presented to us now, in as restrictive a rule essentially as you can have, which is to offer you the minimum time per side as opposed to the minimum time you have under the 5-minute rule for the Members of the House, which is 5 minutes per Member who can stand up and argue these debates. That is open and free debate. This rule is not about open and free debate. This rule is about closing down debate so you do not have to answer the hard questions.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have got to understand the kind of time that these people are giving the Government, and now apparently if they are not associated with the USGS, they will still be allowed to do that.They could do it for NASA, they could do it in the fields of education, they could do it at NIH, they can do it everywhere else in the Government, but we are not going to let them wade into our streams and put a beaker down and pick up some water and take it to the laboratory. We are not going to let them pick a little bit of flowers or identify a bird even though they may be the best people in the Nation identifying the bird.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, on the point that the gentleman from Illinois was pursuing with you, I appreciate what the gentleman is doing in terms of the migratory birds. But, again, I do not understand why we are going to draw a barrier around one provision where he will not be able to use volunteers. We started to talk about it this morning in the debate on the rule. But can the gentleman tell me, he says, Well, not for the science functions. He wants everybody to be a Ph.D. But I do not understand.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. I hate to belabor the point, ladies and gentlemen, but the gentleman from Ohio has simply not answered the question the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and others have asked, and that is: Why do you have a ban on volunteers? And we are told that we have a ban on volunteers by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from California only because we want good science. Well, if a PhD, if a Nobel Prize winner wants to volunteer, they cannot volunteer, because this says, ``No volunteers in the USGS'', so a Nobel Laureate cannot go out on the weekends and take water samples, take a little test tube, put it into the river and collect it and give it to a government scientist, because it says, ``No volunteers.'' It does not say, ``Volunteers except for Einstein.'' It says, ``No volunteers.'' So you have not answered the question. It is not a property issue, because we just accepted the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] that says you can go onto private property if you are, in fact, invited by the owner of that property, as we have seen with a number of timber companies that want this service provided so they can design their cuts to maximize the efficiency of their operations and environmental protection. So you are stuck here with something that does not quite smell right. Now what else have you done? You really denigrate hundreds of thousands of people in this country. Some are bird watchers, some are reptilian fanciers, some are people who are interested in habitat, some are interested in this as a hobby, and they are very skilled people. They work in Yosemite National Park, they work in the Sequoias. They are collecting data. Yes; I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] they are interrupted because every study that Fish and Wildlife does now will have to be redesigned and refunded because it is relying on volunteer programs designed by the National Biological Survey, which has now been put into the U.S. Geological Survey. You cut that budget by $49 million. You start to see the picture? You cut the budget. We need more volunteers. You prohibit the volunteers, and the other agencies that are relying on these volunteers now will not be able to use them because they come out of USGS. Why do you not give back the American people the right to volunteer on behalf of their Government? And why do you not give back to the Government the right to supervise those people? Because we have not had these complaints. We have not had the complaints in California where they are working in the Rosewood National Park to document changes in channel stability so we know what the farmers can do upstream in that area. They are working in Sequoia National Park, and they have over 480 hours, for a total of 1,920 hours they have given collecting data, not rocket scientists, collecting data under the direction of people there. Over the last 15 years, 75 volunteers have contributed to the efforts of the Santa Cruz field station to help the 5 employees who are there. We see it in the National Park Service and the National Marine Fisheries, studies that are used that rely on these same people and these volunteers. They are doing it in Maine at Acadia National Park, monitoring bald eagle reproduction which contributed to the downlisting to removing this bird from the endangered species; the Southern Science Center has over 30 volunteers. These volunteers help in laboratories and greenhouses and help with the coastal mapping activities. These are American citizens who are out there helping their Government, helping the private sector, and what you are telling them is, ``No,'' you are telling them ``No.'' You have them in Massachusetts at Turner Falls, at the global change lab in Hadley and the Cape Cod National Seashore field station; you have the great American fish count, where every year during 2 weeks in July thousands of people go in to count the fish. So, again, we can start to map what catches will be available or not be available. You have them in Alaska, where they help out in counting the Canadian geese. It goes on and on and on. [[Page H 6954]] The point is this: The point is that many of these are very talented graduate students from our finest universities, and they volunteer. Now, mind you, some only have masters degrees, a hell of a lot more educated than many Members of this Congress in a specific field, and they are volunteering. Some of them are some of the most noted people in their fields as private citizens, but they go out during certain periods of the year to help us find out more and more about species and about habitat, to help the Government make intelligent decisions, and we are going to cut these people off. We are going to cut these people off even though we have the protection that they cannot go on private land without being invited and even though they are following the direction of government employees or contractors or what have you. We have them in the State heritage programs, very important programs to most States. They are helping the States design these programs. We cannot use them, because they are now in the USGS. Why can we not use them? Because we said that we did not want to use them because they are scientists; they are scientists in many instances. You ought to get yourself out of this situation. You ought to get yourself out of this situation. You ought to go back to what President Bush talked about, the 10,000 points of light. We have got to go with what every President of the United States has talked about, encouraging voluntarism.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. There is a restriction. Here are all the grants; here are all the programs ongoing for 5 years, 3 years. They have to be rewritten now because you prohibit the thousands of Americans who are helping their Government because these programs are off limits. Now these programs are off limits. You say you want the authorizing committee, fine, let us design it. You put a ban on it, so for the next fiscal year they cannot do this.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. No, no. Those are public lands already owned by the United States. Let me say this is not unique.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] raised the question, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] raised the question, about maintenance costs. in many instances, the land that is in the backlog waiting to be acquired is held by private landowners in the middle of a national forest, on the edge of a national forest, or surrounded on two sides or three sides or four sides by a national forest. These people want out. They are encumbered by the fact that the forest is there. The Forest Service or the Park Service or the Refuge Service would reduce their operational costs and administrative costs because of these in-holdings. These people in many cases have been standing in line for years after year after year. We have heard about them. And this committee is struggling. I do not doubt what they try to do every year. This committee has struggled to try to meet that demand. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and I have sat in our committee and continued to make sure that they never whittle the backlog down. the fact is, the backlog exists. I think that with the new Congress, the backlog is about to not be added to, if I hear what is going on in our committee correctly. But we owe it to those people who are waiting to have their lands purchased. And there is money available, but there is not if we choose to use it in the Department of Energy fossil fuel research; again, which many of these companies can do on their own and have the availability to do. It is a question of priorities. Let us understand that in many instances, this is about reducing administrative costs in Park Service units, in National Park Services, in wildlife refuge units. So, it is not all about that. This would give, obviously, the Forest Service and the Committee on Appropriations the ability to set priorities, but let us get rid of some of this backlog. It is not fair to these people to just leave them hanging there as we have purchased all the land around them. I would hope that we would support the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 32 printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified as set forth in the amendment I have at the desk.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would again reject this rule since this rule is contrary to the rules of the House in that it provides for substantial legislation on an appropriation and protects those items of legislation on an appropriation against a point of order that would ordinarily lie against those provisions under the rules of the House. So we are not quite complying with the rules of the House as the majority has suggested that we are. But it is also because the changes that they seek to make are devastating to the programs. This legislation that historically has been about the stewardship of this Government of the public's lands, the lands that are owned by the taxpayers and the citizens of the United States of America, public lands that are used by some 300 million visitors this year, public lands that have attracted millions of tourists from other countries to the United States to visit our parks, to visit our wilderness [[Page H 6924]] areas, to visit our historical sites, it has been the charge of this committee to provide the resources to take care of those lands. What we see now is for the first time in 40 years, this committee has failed to discharge its duty to the public in the kind of funding that it provides. This committee has gone far beyond just the issue of the budgetary issues. This committee has gone off in a fit against activities that they do not like. They do not like the Endangered Species Act. So they decided what they would do is they would not let any moneys be used for prelisting activities. That is an interesting notion because that also means that you cannot use money for prelisting activities that might prevent a species from being endangered. They also tell you that they are not going to let you use volunteers to go around and collect the data that might help us map out how we avoid the endangered species crisis that we have experienced in the past. They also tell you that they will not let you use the National Biological Survey on private lands, even if requested by private landowners. And the fact of the matter is, we have forest products companies in this country that have requested this help so they can map out how to harvest their timber in an environmentally safe manner, how they can harvest their timber so they do not run into an endangered species problem, how they can harvest it on a sustainable basis so they can go to their shareholders and they can say: This is on your plan to operate this company in the future. We would not allow them to have the benefit of the knowledge and the scientific expertise of the biological survey even if requested by them. These Republicans are sticking their head in the sand, and what do they hope happens? They hope that we get into an endangered species crises, one after another, one after another so there will be a growing groundswell to repeal the act. If it is in fact repealed, it will be repealed because they have denied the ability of the agencies to work to protect the endangered species. Last night we were treated on ABC News to the success of the Endangered Species Act, to the bald eagle being returned from the endangered list to now 4,000 pairs, bald eagles also that are viewed now in many States where they were basically extinct because of DDT and because of other activities, and the delisting of the gray whale and others. So where are we on this? They have decided they want to fight over the past, and they want to destroy the ability of this agency to do its work. Not only have they weighed in on behalf of the special interests that want to see the repeal of the Endangered Species Act, but they have also weighed in on behalf of the special interests that simply want to continue to use the public's lands without paying for them. In my town hall meetings very often people say to me when they are talking about the deficit, they say, why do not you run the Government like a business? One of the reasons we do not run the Government like a business is because of the Republicans. No business would give away billions of dollars of gold and platinum and silver and trona and coal and gas and oil and not make those individuals pay a fair royalty. But that is what the Federal Government does. Last year we witnessed the Federal Government giving away land for a few thousand dollars, of which it was expected to be mined a billion dollars or $10 billion in gold. And the American taxpayer got zip. You want to know why there is a deficit? You keep pandering to the big energy companies, to the big mining companies, and you will end up with a deficit. The public is entitled to a fair return. But what does this bill do? This bill says, we will remove the moratorium. It got so outrageous that the Congress decided last year to put a moratorium on this activity until we get a mining reform bill. They have lifted the moratorium, so once again we are back into the business of giving long-term leases, ownership in fact, of Federal lands to the mining companies without their paying their fair share for that effort. I think that you have got to understand that this legislation is among the worst pieces of environmental legislation to come through the House so far. It falls on the heels of the lobbyists and special interests writing the clean water bill that we witnessed. It falls on the legislation to devastate the environment in terms of regulatory reform that is now being held up in the Senate. We ought to disavow this legislation. We ought to disavow this rule because of its allowing for legislation on the appropriation. And we also ought to understand that this is a systematic effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act so that Members will hear from their districts that they have to repeal the act because the act does not work. The reason the act does not work is because the Republicans in the House are falling into the same method that George Bush and Ronald Reagan used, and that was, they would not let the act work because they were hoping that they could build up such anger over the act that it would, in fact, be repealed. It is not going to be repealed because the overwhelming majority of American people do not want it repealed. They want it to work. They want the species saved. They want us to make smart decisions. Finally, let me just say this, they banned the use of volunteers. They banned the use of volunteers. Four thousand Americans go out and help this Government by surveying the number of birds, breeding birds, and others in this country, and help State agencies to collect that data. In Yosemite National Park and in Sequoia National Park, they collect biological data. We are trying to restore the Grand Sequoias of the Sierra Mountains. And yet what we find out is, if you want to do that on private land with volunteers, you are not allowed to do that.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Are we going to allow the National Biological Survey on private property?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] was coming my way. Here I have been speaking for 7 minutes. Let me tell you about the National Biological Survey on private lands. This is an outrage. The issue about the National Biological Survey on private land is this, a lot of local communities and a lot of companies, private enterprise, want to avoid the problems of the Endangered Species Act and getting into where you have a threatened endangered species. In southern California, in northern California that I am familiar with, they are trying to go out and determine the areas that are inhabited by the kit fox, by the salamanders, so that the developers, the home builders, industry and others will know what they can do or not do with their land and how they can develop it. They want the help of the government. They want the help. Forest products companies in the Southeast have asked for help from the National Biological Survey. What this Congress would say or what this House would say in this bill is, even if requested, they cannot help you, if it is about private land. What you have done is you have diminished the rights of those landowners to get the help of the Government that they pay taxes for that have the expertise to help them get out of a problem that can cost them millions of dollars, if not their companies. They are asking for help and you are telling them no, we will not allow you to be of help on private land. Last year we had a problem because people were concerned about the National Biological Survey coming onto their land without permission. And we required that they obey the laws of the State and gain permission. No problem with that. But now you are saying to people who are involved, have hundreds of millions of dollars at risk, have loans at the banks, that they cannot get the help from their Federal Government or Orange County cannot get the [[Page H 6925]] help or the Irvine Co. cannot get the help, they cannot get the help to solve this problem because somebody has decided they want a train wreck. They want a national crisis around the Endangered Species Act. It is absolutely mindless. Let us hear for an amendment on that one. Come on. Do we have one?

Mr. MILLER of California. Why would we not allow this Government to engage volunteers to collect samples of habitat or to map out areas and give that to the scientists and let the scientists make their determination? It is mindless, again, when private companies are asking for the help. You do not say only scientists. You say no volunteers. You say nobody from NBS on private land.

Mr. MILLER of California. You will not even let the science people. No amendment, Ralph?