George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate that the gentleman wants to make this comparison between a public option and the private sector. Let's run down what happened over the last 10 years. The private sector took $100 billion in subsidies, and as they became the most profitable sector of the American economy, they couldn't give back any of those subsidies. While they were getting the $100 billion in subsidies, they were engaged in price-fixing, anti-competitive practices, briberies, conflicts of interest, improper disclosure. And, at the end of that, they needed a bailout. Sound familiar? Want to invest again?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Or, you can look at the public option here. The public option offered a product of equal value, very low cost, easy to administer, attractive to the people who used it. Major universities have used it for years with any problems, very complimentary about it, and it is in fact saving the loan industry at this very time because the private system has collapsed. I yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) who has put an awful lot of work into the early childhood education section of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), the newest member of our committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I just want 10 seconds to say that I'm glad the gentleman mentioned the California EdFund. The EdFund supports this legislation. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), who was very involved in writing this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, yes, I do agree with the intent of that language.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a vigorous member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I recognize that the Bank of North Dakota is an important institution in North Dakota and is different from any other lending institution in the country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, yes, I will work with you, as this legislation moves to conference, to ensure that State banks have a continued role in the Federal student lending program.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Speaker.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I believe that many of those facts just cited are in dispute but I just want to say this: We got off to a rather fast start this afternoon, and I want to take a moment just to thank all of the members of the committee who worked so hard on this legislation, and I want to thank the Rules Committee for making the rule in order. I want to thank the minority. I know they don't agree with this legislation, but I appreciate the work that they have done with us on facilitating the markup of this legislation and bringing it to the floor. I just wanted to acknowledge that. We kind of just got right into the bill. But I wanted to say that on behalf of all of the staffs that have worked together. Again, they don't agree on the outcome or the bill in this fashion, but we still have to work together to meet our obligations as a committee to this House, and I wanted to take time to thank everybody.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have a manager's amendment at the desk.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the distinguished Caucus Chair.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1043, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva of the Natural Resources Committee and the minority for bringing this legislation to the floor. As it was noted, this similar legislation passed on a voice vote in the last Congress. The Fouts Springs Youth Facility has been managed by Solano County, Colusa County, and their partners for nearly 50 years. The bill before the House today guarantees that they can continue to do their good work. Fouts Springs has helped rehabilitate California's young offenders and has provided these young offenders from across the State with much-needed structure and significant vocational educational opportunities. Presently, Solano County operates Fouts Springs on behalf of several other California counties under a special use authorization. This legislation, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act, will give Solano County the 82 acres that they use at Fouts Springs, and in exchange, it would give to the Mendocino National Forest 160 acres of nearby land known as Deafy Glade. The Deafy Glade property has access to the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area, and it has been a high priority for acquisition by the Forest Service since at least the early 1990s. Last year, the Natural Resources Committee received testimony that the Deafy Glade parcels would be a key addition to the Mendocino National Forest's trail system. Again, I want to thank the committee for its timely consideration of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this matter when it comes before the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Protect America's Wildlife (PAW) Act. This legislation is a narrowly crafted amendment to the Airborne Hunting Act, which has been on the books for decades. Simply put, the PAW Act will stop the unnecessary and unscientific air assault on wolves and other wildlife that is occurring in Alaska, and it will prevent other states from following Alaska's lead. In 1971, as a response to public outcry over airborne wolf hunting in Alaska, Congress took decisive action by passing the Airborne Hunting Act. The law was a direct result of the national outcry over brutal and needless wolf hunting conducted by airplane in Alaska, brought to the public's attention by a television documentary. At the time, Congress recognized that this unsportsmanlike practice should only be used in extreme situations--as in the defense of humans, livestock, and wildlife--which is why the Airborne Hunting Act banned the practice and made narrow exceptions for those extreme situations. The Congressional Record reflects that these exceptions, and in particular the wildlife exception, were not intended as a carte-blanche to the states. In the 92nd Congress, the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries prepared a report on ``Shooting Animals From Aircraft'' that clearly articulated that the states should not ``utilize or permit the utilization of aircraft to achieve a balance in wildlife, which should be left to nature or to other more sportsmanlike hunting practices.'' Unfortunately, the State of Alaska has spent the last several years defying congressional intent. The state is granting permits to individuals who are harassing and shooting wolves and other wildlife from planes to artificially boost game species, even though the state has no credible scientific evidence to show that the relevant prey populations are actually at risk. Hundreds of scientists, the esteemed American Society of Mammalogists, and wildlife managers in Alaska have all spoken out against the State's airborne ``predator control'' programs as unnecessary, unscientific, and in violation of the clear objective of the Airborne Hunting Act. In addition, I recently received a letter, which I will enter into the record, from nine former Alaska Board of Game members that strongly supports the PAW Act and notes that ``Alaska's current predator control programs . . . clearly circumvent the federal Airborne Hunting Act (AHA) of 1972.'' Wolves are now being shot from airplanes on more than 60,000 square miles of Alaska, including federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and on lands adjacent to several national parks, preserves, and national wildlife refuges. This past spring, state employees targeted wolves that were known to den inside the Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve, and which were part of a long-term National Park Service study. Let me be very clear: the exceptions that Congress provided in the Airborne Hunting Act gave states the right to use an extreme measure in extreme circumstances. But instead, the state of Alaska has exploited that exception and violated the intent of the law. Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed through these practices. The state's program of hunting predators from the air has spiraled out of control; it is unscientific and goes far beyond any recognizable form of legitimate wildlife management. Proponents of these practices will say that the state's program is run for the benefit of those who rely upon moose and caribou for food. But the reality is that the state continues to allow moose and caribou hunting by out-of-state hunters and non-local resident hunters, in the same regions they claim airborne wolf hunting is needed to boost moose and caribou populations. One final note on the pressing need for this legislation. Now that wolves in the Northern Rockies have been removed from the endangered species list, there is a threat that other states may attempt to misuse the same exception that Alaska has misused, to hunt wolves in the lower 48 states from airplanes in order to boost game populations. The Protect America's Wildlife Act, which I am introducing today, is carefully and narrowly crafted. It specifically addresses the ongoing misuse of the wildlife management provision as I outlined above, while maintaining the ability of states to address legitimate biological emergencies in the wild, as Congress intended. Specifically, this legislation: Clarifies the conditions under which states can use airplanes and helicopters to kill wolves and other predators. For example, they may still be used to address legitimate biological emergencies in prey populations; Requires states to provide a scientific foundation for their use of the wildlife management exception as part of the report to the Department of the Interior which they are already required to submit; and Maintains the ability of states to use aerial gunning to protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to take a stand for wildlife and for proper use of our wildlife laws by supporting the Protect America's Wildlife Act. July 14, 2009. Re The Protect America's Wildlife Act Dear Representative Miller: As former members of the Alaska Board of Game, we endorse the modest but crucial changes to the Federal Airborne Hunting Act (16 USC 742j1) contained in the Protect America's Wildlife Act, which you are sponsoring in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Alaska Board of Game (hereafter Board) is a seven member citizen board appointed by Alaska's governor and confirmed by the state legislature. The Board promulgates Alaska's hunting and trapping regulations and establishes wildlife policies including those for predator control. The Protect America's Wildlife Act is largely a response to Alaska's current predator control programs, which clearly circumvent the federal Airborne Hunting Act (AHA) of 1972. The legislation would clarify the intent of the AHA so that the exception that allows a state to authorize the use of aircraft to shoot wildlife must be based on the finding of a biological emergency and not used to increase prey populations just to meet increasing hunter demand. It further provides that when a state authorizes aircraft shooting under the exception, it must be supported by adequate scientific data and the shooting must be conducted by government personnel only. The Protect America's Wildlife Act is in conformance with the laws that Alaskan voters passed by initiative in 1996 and 2000. The state legislature reversed the will of the people both times. Extensive wolf control is being conducted in Alaska at present. Aerial predator control is now occurring on more than 60,000 square miles of Alaska--the largest predator control program since statehood. Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed by private hunters through shooting directly from airplanes or from the land and shoot practice. This past spring, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game killed 84 wolves in 5 days in eastern Alaska. In March, the Board reauthorized aerial predator control for five more years and has eased the regulations further by allowing private aerial gunning teams to now use helicopters to kill wolves. Many Alaskans object to using state personnel for ongoing airborne wolf control as a standard game management tool unless there is a serious biological problem. And even more strongly object to the use of private pilots for these activities because of the long, well documented history of abuses and violations of the AHA. We also note that the long, detailed history of predator control in Alaska and elsewhere clearly demonstrates that control is often poorly supported by sound science, ignores other options, and often becomes institutionalized and perpetual. The Protect America's Wildlife Act would help curb these problems by restricting lethal control programs to those that are well justified and truly necessary. We are aware that other control options are available and effective including non-lethal control and habitat management. In summary, we strongly support The Protect America's Wildlife Act and believe that it would improve the management of wildlife in Alaska as well as settle some longstanding, controversial issues related to predator control. Sincerely, Former Alaska Board of Game Members Vic Van Ballenberghe, Joel Bennett, Leo Keeler, Tom Meacham, George Matz, R.T. Skip Wallen, Bruce Baker, Nicole Whittington-Evans, Jack Lentfer.