George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, we rise in support of this legislation. We think that it is important that we do get a handle on those programs that the Federal Government currently supports in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Late last year, the Democratic Caucus introduced an innovation agenda, and that innovation agenda was designed to make sure that America would retain its competitiveness and America would be able to go forward into this century as a leader in math, science and engineering and a leader in innovation, a place that America has held for the last 50 years. We have held that position in the world because of an investment that was made by President Kennedy to go to the Moon and to return safely, and the infrastructure that was built up by that decision. President Kennedy understood it was more than just a moon shot. It was about building an infrastructure in math, science and engineering for this country for the future. And that decision led to the greatest public-private partnership in the history of the world and created an infrastructure today that we continue to live off of and that has driven this economy for that same period of time. The question is whether or not we need to renew that investment. Clearly those people who are participating in this economy at the highest levels, on the cutting edge, those who are creating new start- ups, who have created some of the great companies of the world in high technology, biotech and engineering, tell us that it is absolutely imperative that America make this effort. They have made it also clear to us that the foundation of this is the American education system; that not only must we fully fund No Child Left Behind, as the American Electronics Association called for, but we have to make a new commitment to graduate studies, we have to make a new commitment to the teachers of math, science and engineering at all levels, and we have got to make a new commitment to research and development. So this resolution is quite timely, because it is important that we understand not only why these programs are on the books, the purposes for which they are created, but do they still work in today's environment, should they be modified, should they be merged, should they be given new purposes. We know that the National Science Foundation outside of the Department of Education has created some of the most effective programs for young people to become excited about the physical sciences and the life sciences and to understand the world around them, and have engaged students in a way that they are unlikely to be engaged with the traditional textbook approach to those sciences. In my own State of California, we now see the University of California initiating a new program where those students of math, science and engineering will be able to concurrently achieve a teaching credential, so not only will they be fully skilled in the core subject matters of engineering and math and science, but they will also, if they decide to go into the teaching field, be fully qualified to teach those subject matters and create that excitement that we talk about so much, so that young people will truly see the value and the excitement of studying and entering careers that deeply involve math, science and engineering. If we fail to do this, if we fail to do more than this resolution, if the national science programs continue to come under budget pressure, then the problem will be that we can lose that leadership in fields of innovation where America has been so terribly strong. We now see strategic investments being made in the educational facilities, in the research facilities, all along the Asian Rim, by India, by China, by Indonesia, by Korea, in the field of telecommunications and the field of technology and the field of biosciences; and it is terribly important for our economy here at home, for the jobs of the future and for our leadership in the world and a matter of our national security, certainly, in the technology fields. The only way we are going to be able to do that, according to those people who are betting their companies, betting their shareholders' money, betting borrowed money and the venture capitalists staking their future on it, is to engage in a full and comprehensive program for competitiveness and innovation. In the Democratic proposal, the challenge that we have laid down to this Congress, that challenge is to create a new generation of innovators, and this legislation speaks to this because it speaks to the education programs that will be available and the effectiveness of those programs for math, science and engineering. We also speak to that by making sure that there are graduate fellowships, much as we did again in the effort to reach the Moon in the Kennedy administration where 28,000 fellowships were given. Those individuals finished their graduate studies early and became part of that great foundation of American ingenuity and competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, with that, I, too, want to support this resolution and draw attention to the needs that we have in the areas of science, engineering and math for the education establishments in this country. We dramatically need to improve the number of highly qualified teachers with core competencies in these fields; we dramatically need to increase the number of young people who are excited by this; and we dramatically need to increase the number of young people who want to choose this as a career, as a profession, as a place of excitement and innovation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this legislation. Again, I want to thank Mr. Price and Mr. McKeon for bringing this bill to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as Members are aware, I have spoken out forcefully on the need for rapid Federal action to address mine safety. I have urged this Congress to legislate, to push us toward a new era in which the technology that has helped revitalize the productivity of the mining industry would also be used to save the lives and limbs of our miners. Unfortunately, the bill sent from the Senate fails to make the reforms that go to the very heart of what happened in the Sago mine disaster. It fails in three significant ways. It does not guarantee that miners trapped underground will have enough air to survive an accident like Sago. It does not give miners prompt access to wireless communications and electronic tracking devices so they can communicate with their rescuers instead of having to bang on pipes and bang on rocks like miners did hundreds of years ago. It does not guarantee that the emergency oxygen units like the ones that Randal McCloy, the only Sago survivor, told us in some cases were defective, and would be tested at random by the Federal Government to ensure that they work properly. In other words, if another Sago mine disaster were to happen, this bill does not ensure that we would not have the same tragic deaths, because it does not address what killed the miners in the Sago mine disaster. I want to remind Members that 11 of the 12 miners that died at Sago did not die from the initial explosion. They died because they did not have communication tools to lead them to safety; they died because they did not have an oxygen supply to last the 40 hours that they were trapped. I cannot, in good conscience, support a bill if passed that would not prevent another Sago, when we understand the tragedy that took place there. When it comes to the safety of miners, and thousands of miners and families across the Nation, the House can do better than take-it-or- leave-it legislation that fails to provide that margin of safety that these families are entitled to. In the last 10 days, there have been two significant developments that demonstrate that we can and we must do better than the Senate bill. Last week, the Industry Labor Mine Technology Panel appointed by Governor Manchin of West Virginia composed of equal numbers of industry and miner representatives, concluded that there were significant enhancements to miner safety that could be achieved through wide application of existing technologies and techniques. Then this industry labor report makes two recommendations that go to the heart of the matter: that emergency shelters and chambers shall provide a minimum of 48 hours of breathable air and in no later than 15 months mine operators will have to submit a communications and tracking plan for approval. That is all that the amendments that I have offered suggest that we do, i.e., what is now accepted in the mining industry in the State of West Virginia. Now, someone explain this to me: the coal mine industry in West Virginia agrees with the West Virginia miners that there should be a guaranteed 48 hours of breathable air in a crisis, but the Congress of the United States refuses to provide that same promise to miners across the country. The coal mining industry in West Virginia agrees that miners should have prompt access to wireless communications and electronic tracking devices, but the Congress of the United States refuses to provide that same promise to miners across this Nation. And here is another development. A few weeks ago, the Illinois legislature sent far-reaching mine safety legislation to the Governor's desk. It passed 111-0. It passed the Senate 57-1. The IL bill has two critical reforms, emergency mine chambers with 48 hours of air and rapid installation of wireless communications by the end of the year. The State of Illinois can promise no more Sago tragedies. The coal mining industry in West Virginia can make that promise, but the U.S. House is being asked to ignore all of that evidence, all of those improvements, and rubber stamp a Senate bill with no opportunity to improve it. That is wrong, and we should not stand for it. I have spent a great deal of time over the last few months listening to what those Sago families have to tell us. I have listened to their very specific and very reasonable recommendations. I listened to Mrs. Debbie Hamner, who lost her husband, Junior, in the Sago tragedy. As many of you know, only one of the twelve miners who died in that tragedy was killed by the explosion. The rest died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Junior Hamner was one of those who died in that manner. And Mrs. Hamner asked why were they not equipped with enough oxygen. Why did we not require air supplies to be stored in the mine sections that they were working? Why do Canadian miners have greater protections than the miners of West Virginia or miners elsewhere in the United States? That is what she wanted to know. And Debbie said, sadly the bill before us today does not even mandate a minimum air supply for miners trapped underground, let alone require a refuge stocked with air, food and water, so that miners would not have to do what they did in Sago when they were trapped, which was to construct a barrier and bang on rocks and hope for the very best. Amber Helms, whose father, Terry, died at Sago, pointed out to us that the miners were still alive after the Sago explosion. The men tried to walk out. The mine foreman tried to walk toward them. But although they ended up only a few hundred yards apart, the foreman did not know where they were and was not able to tell them where they could find good air or a safe way that they could walk out. It is ridiculous, Amber told us, that I can get a computer and I can make a full Web page in an hour, but they cannot find my dad, and they cannot track him. It turns out that Amber was right, that devices are available in the market right now to track the location of these miners. These devices are available, and they should be used and they should be used soon. Last month, the sole survivor of the Sago mine accident, Mr. Randal McCloy, wrote a letter to the families of those who did not survive that mining disaster. Mr. McCloy stated that a number of the self- contained rescue units that were issued for their protection failed to operate. The final amendment that I chose to offer to this legislation would make sure that we would have random inspections of those devices so those miners could have reliability if another tragedy should hit. We understand that the needs are here, and that is why I am telling you that this legislation is not complete. We should not be taking it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The House should have the opportunity to debate. Apparently we are not too busy today for we were going to do this at 6 o'clock and now we are doing this at 2 o'clock. We could have had an hours debate. We could have offered some amendments, voted them up or down, and we then could have moved on about our way. But we have chosen instead to close out these concerns of these miners and these families. We have chosen to close out what we have now learned about the technology. We have chosen to close out the agreements that the mining industry and the miners have reached in some States but not in all States, and we have chosen, worst of all, not to mitigate and protect and provide a margin of safety to those miners, should we have a repeat of the Sago mine disaster. We know Sago happened. We know why the miners were killed, and we know what we can do to prevent it. It is within our grasp. It is inexpensive and it is readily available. But in the Senate bill it is not required for another 3 years. In the Senate bill, we do not specify a minimum of 48 hours of oxygen, as West Virginia has started to specify and as the State of Illinois has specified. So this is not about being way out on the cutting edge and trying to destroy a bill or kill a bill or any of the rest of that. This is about spending time with these families and seeing that grief and having to try and answer the questions that they ask, no longer on behalf of their husbands, their brothers, their uncles, no longer on their own behalf, but on behalf of the other mining families in their communities, and the other mining families in other States that are not addressing this situation. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would vote against the suspension of the rules under this act, and that we would be able to take this legislation up, offer these amendments, win, lose or draw. At least then we could have said that we made the last best effort to provide immediate security, immediate remedy to the failures that led to the loss of life in these mine disasters. It is well documented, the problems and the impacts and the fatalities that were created by those shortcomings. The Senate bill simply does not address those. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who spoke to this issue. All of them have worked very hard on behalf of mine safety, not just in the aftermath of these most recent tragedies but throughout their entire congressional careers. We share that in common. This is not an adversarial relationship. This is a difference of opinion, and I think it is an important difference of opinion. I think that when we went back and we went over these tragedies and saw what it was that killed these miners, we saw that we also had the capabilities to address the causes and to address them now, and not wait 3 years to do some of this. We also understood that the quantities of oxygen required for trapped miners would be a minimum of 48 hours. It was after some 20 hours that Junior Hamner at Sago wrote a note (that was found from him) that said, I am in no pain now, but I don't know how long the air will last. If we pass this legislation without these amendments, we do not know how long the air will last. There is no minimum standard in this bill and it should be made explicit on behalf of the miners. Other miners told us that the air-pack units were not working adequately. We need random spot checks to make sure that there is reliability in the air- packs. We heard the stories of the trapped Sago miners struggling to communicate as they would have 100 years ago in the mines, by banging on pipes and banging rocks together. The fact of the matter is it is now within our grasp to address these problems and address them now. Under this legislation, as it is currently written, if a Sago-type mine accident were to happen again, a month from now or 6 months from now, we do not provide the remedies that are necessary to save lives. Given what we learned from the Sago mine accident, I would hope that the Congress would do that. This is not about speed. It's about getting it right. I have been here 30 years, and so very often I have been told if this amendment passes, that is the end of the process, and later that night, we pass the bill with the amendment. We all understand what the attempt here is, and I understand the desire of my colleagues who are so deeply impacted by these tragedies to get this legislation on the books. I would hope that my colleagues would pause for a moment because maybe when I first spoke of them, there was some controversy about these amendments. But the judgment that I have brought to this bill and the determination that I have brought to this bill, has now been ratified by the coal commission in West Virginia and by the State legislature in Illinois. These are key components for the survivability of these kinds of accidents since the Sago miners were not killed by the initial explosion, rockfall or other incident that took place. And that's why I am so compelled to stand here. It's not easy. I have gotten more interesting phone calls from the Senate from Members who are interested in the bill than I probably have in the last 5 years. These are men I have worked with my entire career: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator John D. Rockefeller, Senator Kennedy. They are friends. They are heroes of mine. But we have a disagreement here. It is fundamental. I believe it is important, and I would hope that we could be able to do this. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this suspension of the rules so we would have a chance to address this in limited open debate, with up-or-down votes. I am not here to delay the bill at all, and I would hope that that would be the outcome of this debate. Again, I think all of us, whether people agree with me or disagree with me, all of us share the desire to increase the margins of safety for those individuals who go into the mines and for their families who remain on the surface. We have talked a great deal about energy. This is a key component of energy. We need these people to continue to go into the mines, and all of us desire to increase those margins of safety for them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Willows Theatre Company in Concord (Contra Costa County), California and the major, positive impact it has had--and continues to have--in the cultural life of the San Francisco Bay Area. For three decades, the Willows has developed and produced dramas, comedies and musicals--more than 210 in all--drawn from contemporary American playwrights, composers and lyricists for a mix of world or area premieres and revivals of classic American shows. Six productions a year, for a total of 244 performances, attract thousands of loyal patrons each year. The current patron base has grown to more than 4,500 subscribers, with renewals at an enviable 87 percent. The company is training theater artists, and creating viable relationships with playwrights, designers, actors and students whose work will impact current and future audiences and artists. Over the past 4 years alone, the Willows has earned 17 awards from the Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle. The Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County honored Richard Elliott, artistic director, in 2000 and Andrew Holtz, managing director, in 2004 with Arts Recognition Awards. In 2002, the San Francisco Business Arts Council presented its Cyril Award for Non-Profit Arts Excellence to the Willows. Aside from its renowned artistic successes, the Willows also is an economic force in the community. With an annual budget approaching $2 million, the company maintains facilities, employs administrative support staff, and affords the first opportunity for professional employment for many developing theater artists. The company was the first theater in Contra Costa County to operate under a seasonal contract with Actors Equity Association, with as many as 200 or more professional and non-union Bay Area artists employed during a season. In support of other non-profit arts organizations throughout the region, the Willows operates a Community Box Office service that has returned more than $400,000 in earned income revenue to dozens of groups. As part of its mission, the Willows engages youths in a variety of programs, including a conservatory, a round theater arts and student internship training program. In addition, it offers greatly reduced student ticket rates to encourage family and school attendance at live theater. With a remarkable record of achievement in the past 30 years, the Willows is now focused on the future. Later this year, the company will expand its operations by opening a 220-seat cabaret-style theater in Martinez, the seat of government for Contra Costa County. Earlier this year, the company completed a 9,000 square-foot production facility in Waterfront Park in Martinez, in close proximity to the 1,000-seat John Muir Amphitheater. The facility was constructed to accommodate multiple performances of ``John Muir's Mountain Days,'' a musical, commissioned by the Willows, based on the life of the famed preservationist John Muir, whose residence in Martinez is a National Historic Site. These activities are part of the John Muir Festival Center, an educational, cultural heritage and economic development project in which the Willows has taken a leadership role along with its partners-- the city of Martinez, the John Muir Association, the National Park Service, and the Martinez Historical Society. On July 3, 2006, the Willows will celebrate its 30th anniversary with a gala that includes a dinner and a show in the John Muir Amphitheater featuring the Diablo Symphony and performers from past Willows Theatre productions. I am proud to join in the celebration.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. We have, as many have said, been through this issue before, but we have never been here in this situation. The suggestion is by those individuals that somehow, if we just drill ANWR, that we will have lower gasoline prices in the United States. Maybe they do not know it, but they should know it, that there is only now one price of oil. It is the world price of oil. The last time we had lower prices in the United States, the oil companies drilling in ANWR sought to export that oil to Japan rather than sell it into the United States. So these are not benevolent societies. These are profit-making organizations. And if the world price of oil is $70 a barrel, it will be $70 a barrel in ANWR. If it is $100 a barrel it will be $100 a barrel from ANWR. So the idea America is going to get this fix out of ANWR just isn't true. By the time ANWR comes on line, it may be 4 percent of imports. We should not ignore that, but the fact of the matter is, as so many people have pointed out, there is much more that we can do. Many people have referred to the fact that the President stood here and told us we were addicted to oil. Well, the supporters of this legislation and the President of the United States are acting just like addicts. What they are doing is looking for one more quick fix. One more fix and then they will get religion tomorrow. One more fix and they will get well. One more fix and they will go into treatment. What they are telling us is that they have postponed conservation, they have postponed new technologies, and they have postponed new sources of energy. This is the most oil-friendly administration in recent times, and we still find that we cannot meet the demands of this country. Because rather than deal with our demands, rather than deal with the technologies and the innovations that are available to us today, they have put all of their money on the oil companies. They put it there with royalty relief. They put it there with incentives. They have put it there with bonus bid systems and they have put it there with drilling in ANWR. It is a bankrupt policy. What they are now doing in the 11th hour, while American consumers suffer from $3.00 and $3.50 gasoline, they are buying a lottery ticket. They are buying a lotto ticket called ANWR. And they are hoping to be able to redeem it. When it doesn't work, America will be deeper in debt and more dependent on foreign sources of oil than they are today. Because if they can get ANWR, they can once again postpone the commitments to conservation and technology. They can scare you by suggesting Venezuela may cut off its oil. Well, let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they may sell that oil to the Chinese, but it is going to be refined in my district. Because the Chinese can't refine that oil. We know that most oil changes hands from the time it leaves one shore to get to the other shore. It may change ownership three or four times, sometimes as much as a dozen times. And it changes destination. But the fact of the matter is, it is not very attractive oil that Mr. Chavez is trying to sell or put on to the market. So we have to understand what this means. What this comes down to really is about a sense of the future and our values. This ANWR, and I have been there, I meet the test. I have been there, I have explored it, I have slept overnight there, I have stayed out and camped out in this area, so let me talk about it. This is about a pristine area that you either make a decision to industrialize or you don't. The 2,000-acre footprint is a hoax. There is another 69,000 acres under Indian jurisdiction. They can build airports and they can do whatever they want. That is the nature of our relationship with the Indian tribes. So the 2,000 acres is a hoax. It is a decision about the value of this place, this very special place, and whether or not you are going to industrialize it. Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in the ingenuity and the creativity of America. When we put together our innovation agenda, we met with the CEOs of the most advanced companies in the world. And they said to us, put energy innovation on the table, and you will drive a new generation of technology, a new generation of economic activity, and new jobs in America. What are they putting on the table? They are putting on the table the old tired policy that somehow America can drill its way out of this problem. No, it can't. There's nobody who believes that is the situation. But you chose to stick with the 1960s, a 1970s policy, a 1980s policy, a 1990s policy. We would like to think about this century and new innovation and new places to go, and the excitement of new technologies, where America once again sells to the world those cutting-edge technologies. We should not abandon wind energy to the Scandinavians, to the Europeans, and to the Spanish. No, we should have those technologies. We should be making the investments in alternative sources of energy and alternative sources of fuel. That is not what this legislation is about. This is about the one last lottery ticket, the one last gamble that the American people lose with this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to make sure that the taxpayers of this country and the owners of the Federal lands are not shortchanged if in fact ANWR will be opened in the future. Last week we discussed royalty relief, and we made the point that there are companies who have a royalty holiday. They do not pay royalties to the taxpayers of this country for the drilling on the lands that are owned by those taxpayers. In some cases, those companies may be able to escape almost all of the royalties on those lands. We are simply saying to the Secretary of the Interior, if ANWR is opened, whether you are for it or against it, if ANWR is opened, those companies that continue to exploit the royalty holiday will not be allowed to bid for a lease in the ANWR, should it be leased. This is only fair to the taxpayers. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition voted for this last week on legislation. We seek to have that vote again to make sure. We all know that oil is at $70 a barrel. We know oil company profits are at record all-time highs. Yet nobody can figure out how to give the taxpayer a break. The oil companies are not going to lower the price of gas or pay for the research in the bill yesterday, and now they are telling us they won't give back the royalty holiday that they are not entitled to. They are going to continue to exploit this loophole in the law, and then they want to bid on new resources. We simply say, enough is enough. We want to protect the taxpayers. This is not about whether ANWR is open or whether ANWR remains closed; this is about the ethics and this is about the judgment of this Congress in dealing with these oil companies that seek to not only have their cake and eat it too, but to move on and get new cake from the taxpayers of this country. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, last week on the Hinchey amendment, where this issue was as straightforward as it is today, 67 Republicans joined 184 Democrats and overwhelmingly passed this amendment. This amendment is a matter of simple fairness and equity, and it is to make sure that those people at these times of record profits who seek to exploit the loopholes in the law are not allowed to do that and get new leases from the taxpayers of this country in ANWR. That is simple fairness, it is simple equity, and the people of this country are entitled to it. I would urge people to support the motion to recommit, and then the bill will go forward and people can decide on whether or not they want to drill in ANWR, I hope they don't, or, if they want to not do that, I hope they will make that decision. But that is independent of this fairness to the taxpayers, to the ratepayers, to the property owners in this country who own these lands that will be put out to bid, that we don't get fleeced twice by a couple of the oil companies that think they can have it both ways.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, last month the Department of Energy announced, with no notice or consultation with Congress, that it would stop its contractors from offering traditional pension plans to new employees and cut back on health benefits as well, starting next year. Over the next several years, this radical new policy would torpedo the retirement benefits of over 100,000 employees working on the Nation's most cutting edge and vital research and energy projects. This unilateral action by the Department of Energy is a mistake in many ways. It sends a message that the Federal Government no longer supports one of the country's bedrock retirement systems. The Department will shuffle employees into 401(k) savings plans, a vehicle that puts at risk all of the employees. Let's be honest. The 401(k) plans were never designed to meet comprehensive retirement needs of employees. They are saving plans, not retirement plans. But I want to commend Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for addressing this issue in this legislation. It would stop the Department of Energy from implementing this new policy and prohibit it from using the contracting process in any way from curtailing traditional pension plans and health benefits. Groups throughout the retirement policy area have expressed concern with the Department of Energy policy, the AFL-CIO, the AARP, Mercer Human Resources Consulting and Pension Rights Center. Major Energy Department laboratories and facilities are spread throughout the country. These contractors range from institutions like the University of California, Iowa State University, and major companies like Honeywell, Fluor, Johnson Controls and Westinghouse. Thousands of workers at the Energy Department facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; Idaho Falls, Idaho; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Los Alamos, New Mexico have jobs with traditional pension plans and comprehensive benefits. We need this as we try to stay on the cutting edge of competitiveness on a worldwide competition to make sure that we can track the best that this country has to offer in terms of scientists, engineers, computer technicians and the rest. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for taking care of this in this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the January victory of Hamas in parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories was a shock to observers worldwide and to the many of us in the United States and abroad who have repudiated violence between the Palestinians and the Jews and have repudiated attacks on the state of Israel. The election was a shock to the peace efforts in the Middle East because its outcome resulted in the Palestinian government being controlled by a party that was legitimately elected by the voters of the Palestinian territories but that also is a party that sponsors terrorist acts against the Israeli-people and whose doctrine is based upon the notion that the existence of Israel is an affront to Islam. For there to be any progress towards peace under a Hamas-led Palestinian government, Hamas must immediately acknowledge Israel's right to exist; uphold all previous agreements including the Roadmap for Peace; rid itself of all terrorist ties and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure; ensure the continuation of democratic institutions; and how fiscal transparency. If they do not, Hamas cannot expect the support and recognition of the United States and other governments. However, any actions carried out by the U.S. Government against Hamas must address Hamas specifically and not the Palestinian people generally and must not undermine our goals in the Middle East. The bill being voted on today by the House would undermine the U.S. Government's ability to further the peace process and it would clearly hurt the Palestinian people. It could also lead to chaos in the Palestinian territories, which would be counter to both American and Israeli interests. I am not alone in saying that denying all aid, except in the most isolated of instances, to the Palestinian people runs counter to both American and Israeli security interests. If we provoke a humanitarian crisis there, it may very well lead to the collapse of the Hamas government but not without potentially severe costs to both law abiding Palestinians and the peace process at the same time. And it could also erode civil order. We do not and must not ever support terrorists in the Palestinian government. However, the United States must continue to support programs providing the Palestinian people's basic needs such as food, water and medicine; programs supporting democracy, human rights, freedom of the press and non-violence; as well as peaceful co-existence with Israel. That is why I voted against H.R. 4681. The United States has already cut off direct aid to the Hamas government. This bill would not have brought additional penalties directly to Hamas. That objective has already been achieved. But it would penalize the Palestinian people and greatly limit the Administration's diplomatic options in pursuing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I hope that a conference committee with the Senate might produce legislation that addresses my concerns and the concerns of my other colleagues and of many well-regarded organizations and individuals who are deeply pro-Israel and who are great supporters of humanitarian efforts in the Middle East. I look forward to being able to support a revised bill that will send the proper message to Hamas that its violence toward Israel will never be supported and to the Palestinian people that the United States stands ready to work with them to resolve this most difficult and important conflict in peace.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act of 2006, introduced by my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind. I was one of the coauthors of the original Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act in 2000, and I am very pleased to see this new legislation make its way through the process again. This has been a highly successful program, and its reauthorization will help to continue this record of success. The hundreds of species of birds that migrate through our Nation every year are facing urgent threats. Warblers, plovers, and kites were once common, but many species are now listed as endangered or are dwindling rapidly and will soon approach that point. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has greatly helped the effort to protect these creatures here and in Latin America and the Caribbean. Like the other multinational species conservation programs including the Great Apes Conservation Act--whose reauthorization is still pending--the Migratory Bird program has done an excellent job of matching public funds with private donations. In fact, this program has brought in more than $60 million in private sector funds to protect and restore habitat, to study species declines, to provide technical assistance, and to encourage public-private and international partnerships. Mr. Kind's legislation will enable the Interior Department to continue providing this much-needed funding to conservation efforts both in the United States and throughout the Americas. He has done an excellent job shepherding this bill through the House, and I am hopeful that the Act will soon be reauthorized.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What is it about the marketplace that the Republicans don't understand? You signed a valid lease, although there is some argument about it. But you have a valid lease and now you want to lease the space next door. You leased a couple hundred thousand square feet, and you leased a thousand square feet, and now you want to lease next door. The economy has changed and now the land is available and so the landlord says to you, I think we will do is, we will do a wraparound lease. You want this? This is done all the time. It is done all the time in the business world. Various assets at various prices are combined, and the landlord thinks about extracting what he can at that time when you come to renegotiate. This happens all the time in the real estate field, all the time in the minerals field. All we are saying to the government is, these people have such a huge advantage because of the failure of the cap, we don't think they ought to get any additional leases. They can keep those leases without the caps and not lease, or they can negotiate those caps with the government to be like the rest of the oil companies and they can lease. This is a business transaction. It just happens to be a business transaction on behalf of the people of the United States of America who own these lands. What is it about the marketplace that you think at $70 a barrel you need royalty relief? I think you are confusing this with the idea that the oil companies are somehow royalty and we must bow down to them. At $70 a barrel, the conservative chairman of my committee, the Resources Committee, said nobody deserves royalty relief. The President of the United States says at these prices nobody deserves royalty relief. And here you are on the floor of the House of Representatives arguing for people who get $70 a barrel. I talked to the CEOs of these companies when this royalty relief came up, and most of them thought it was balderdash. Most of them thought it was about trying to rescue a couple of companies that made some real bad decisions in the gulf shelf when oil was a bad price. Fine, we agreed that under $34 a barrel you can have some royalty relief. Oil today, my friends, maybe you haven't been out of the Chamber here, it is $70 a barrel; and that is why we are asking the marketplace to work on behalf of the taxpayers of the country who are paying $3.50 for gasoline. The gentleman's amendment should be unanimous in this House on behalf of people who are buying gas and commuting to work and are paying that price every day. Why do they now have to pay it through this tax break through this royalty relief?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You have a loan on your home. You have a second mortgage on your home and you want a new line of credit. It is a valid line of credit and it is a 4 percent loan. What does the bank tell you? We want you to pay it off, and the new rate is 7 percent or 6 percent. People renegotiate these contracts all the time. You just refuse to negotiate them on behalf of the taxpayers. You renegotiate them all of the time on behalf of the oil companies. We do it all of the time. This is what people do when they want to refinance their homes. The banker says, here are the new rules. You can stick with your loan and be happy as you are; but if you want another $50,000 out of your house, here are the points you have to pay. People understand this. Why don't you let the marketplace work for once and why don't we run the government like a business, like so many of our constituents stand up and tell us to do. We now have an opportunity. We now have an opportunity, and you are refusing to take the opportunity on behalf of the taxpayers.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I was detained in committee on a markup during general debate, and I want to rise in support of the DeFazio amendment and against the underlying legislation. I believe that the rationale for this legislation simply does not exist. There is no evidence that existing authorities are inadequate. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management already have many existing authorities for timber salvage, including the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. For situations involving threats to life and property, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management can request alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality, and to date I do not believe that one Forest Service request has been denied. I think the DeFazio amendment is improving the legislation. The sponsors' underlying rationale for this legislation is that there is a dire need for environmental exemptions for timber salvage on Federal lands following a catastrophic event. But there's no evidence that existing authorities are inadequate. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management already have many existing authorities for timber salvage, including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. In 2005, 35 percent of the logging volume on our National Forests came from timber salvage--all completed with existing authorities. The Forest Service is quickly completing one of the largest timber salvage projects in history, 676 million board feet, for those National Forests on the gulf coast impacted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. For situations involving threats to life and property, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management may request alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality, and to date not one Forest Service request has been denied. If Congress approves H.R. 4200, roads will be built in inventoried roadless areas, even though the existing road maintenance backlog is large and growing. Ironically, H.R. 4200 will also divert resources from wildfire prevention. Over 11,000 communities around the country are at high risk for wildfire. There's an urgent need to treat the neighboring forests to reduce the danger. And there are similar conditions across the Country. But instead of focusing on this elevated threat, H.R. 4200 would emphasize putting limited resources on post-fire timber sales, even in areas far from communities. To make things worse, there is a serious chance these salvage operations could actually increase the risk of new fires. The bottom line is that H.R. 4200 is worse than unnecessary--it's counterproductive.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt substitute. Once again, the Republicans in the House have proved that there is little compassion in their brand of conservatism. If anything, with this budget they are declaring themselves to be fiscally irresponsible; soft on national security, veteran neglecting, anti-tax cuts for the middle class, pro-drug company, against real reform in rural health care as well as making quality education affordable. I don't know what brand of conservatism you would call that, but it certainly isn't compassionate. If anything it's irrational; irrational conservatism. Because what the GOP proposes to do is wrong for America. Here's a look: fiscal responsibility The GOP budget calls for deficits for as far as the eye can see, never achieving balance--adding another $2.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years. Democrats propose to lower the deficit over the next 5 years, and get to balance in 6 years. Our plan would reimpose the pay-as-you-go rules, which require that spending increases and tax cuts to be paid for, and which brought us to budget surpluses in 1990s. makes america safer here at home? GOP budget cuts homeland security by almost $500 this year and $6.1 billion over 5 years. It is not much better than the President's budget, which eliminates port security grants and rail and transit security grants--rolling them into a larger grant program. Democrats would provide $6.5 billion more over the next 5 years for homeland security, thereby guaranteeing funding for port security, first responders, and Justice Assistance Grants. adequately funds veterans' programs? The GOP budget cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6 billion over the next 5 years. Democrats have a better way, by providing $6 billion more over the next 5 years for veterans' health care than the GOP budget. Also rejects increases in TRICARE health care costs for more than 3 million military retirees and their families. targets tax cuts to the middle class? No. The GOP budget follows the President's budget, which provides $2.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, targeted to the very wealthiest taxpayers. Democrats would provide $150 billion for middle-class tax relief including child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent individual bracket. addresses problems with the prescription drug benefit? The GOP budget does nothing to address the serious problems in the confusing and costly Bush Prescription Drug plan. Democrats would use PPO slush fund and savings from negotiating drug prices to improve the Prescription Drug plan by working to close the donut hole and providing that drug coverage is reliable. We would also extend the enrollment deadline without penalty. Provides Funding for Key Discretionary Health Care Initiatives? No. The GOP budget is identical to the Bush budget, which slashes rural health activities, underfunds NIH, and cuts prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control. It also cuts physician payments by 5 percent each year. Democrats would provide $18 billion more over the next 5 years for discretionary health care programs than the GOP budget, including NIH and the Centers for Disease Control. And we would provide for an increase in Medicare physician payments in 2007. Makes College More Affordable? No. The GOP Budget is identical to the Bush budget, which freezes Pell Grants for college and denies more than 460,000 students low-cost loans. This is on top of the $12 billion cut in student loan funding that Republicans just enacted. Democrats reject the GOP cuts in higher education programs. We would also lower the cost of student loans--cutting the interest rate on student loans in half in 2007. Expands Educational Opportunity? No. The GOP Budget is identical to the Bush budget, which underfunds No Child Left Behind by 39 percent, denying extra math and reading help to 3.7 million children and shutting 2 million children out of afterschool programs. Democrats would provide $4.6 billion more in 2007 and $45.3 billion more over the next 5 years for education and training programs than the GOP budget. Provides Funding for Key Environmental Protection Initiatives? No. The GOP budget is similar to the Bush budget, which slashes Clean Water funds by 22 percent, cuts Safe Drinking Water funds, and underfunds land and water conservation programs. Democrats would provides $2.9 billion more in 2007 and $25 billion more over the next 5 years for environmental protection programs than the GOP budget.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the completion of the 300th mile of the San Francisco Bay Area Ridge Trail on June 3, 2006. The Bay Area Ridge Trail was the vision of William Penn Mott Jr., who served as the head of the East Bay Regional Park District, California State Parks and as the Director of the National Park Service. Through a lifetime of service, Mr. Mott saw the importance of preserving ridge top lands for scenic, watershed, and habitat values. A key strategy for gaining public support for a significant program of land conservation, in his view, was to create responsible, appropriate and managed ways for the public to access and enjoy these lands through trails. A ``Bay Area ridge trail,'' in the grand tradition of the Appalachian and Pacific Crest trails, could connect people to places around them and build support for land preservation and protection. To bring this vision into reality, a group of public land managing agencies, nonprofit organizations, and local trails and community advocates began meeting in 1987 to plan the route of a ridgeline trail to connect protected land areas and promote additional land preservation. These initial meetings were led by the National Park Service and the People for Open Space (now, the Greenbelt Alliance). In 1988, this planning process led to the birthing of a new nonprofit organization known as the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council to coordinate the efforts of these public and private partners and promote the concept of the trail to the public. I am proud to have played a role in the success of the trail by helping to win congressional support for it. The first trail was dedicated on May 13, 1989, in San Mateo County in the Wunderlich and Huddart County Parks and Purissima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Since 1989, a series of trails have been dedicated as part of the growing Ridge Trail system. On June 3, 2006, the 300th mile will be dedicated in my district at the Crockett Hills Regional Park, in Contra Costa County. The total trail is expected to be over 500 miles in length; therefore this dedication brings the trail to more than halfway toward its completion. The Council today is an independent nonprofit organization with a staff of six, a board of directors of 32, seven active County Committees organizing efforts locally, volunteers numbering in the hundreds, and over 3,500 members working together to complete the trail. As an organization, the Council has many strengths: a diverse and active Board of Directors; a skilled and committed staff; strong public name recognition; a compelling vision and clear mission; numerous strong partnerships with public agencies; strong political support from federal, state, county, and local governments; and committed local volunteer support. No other organization in the Bay Area fills the important niche of providing public access to a regional network of ridgeline trails and open spaces and connecting local trails and communities to one another. Beyond the Council, many public partners and nonprofit organizations work to make the Ridge Trail a reality. Our public agency partners also bring many strengths. The Bay Area enjoys a multitude of public agencies, local governments, and special districts committed to the preservation and protection of land and to providing public recreational access. These organizations have extremely capable and committed boards, directors, and staffs. Many of these organizations also enjoy dedicated public funding from parcel tax assessments, sales tax or general fund support that allows them to pursue a capital program of land acquisition and trail development. As many of these partners helped to give birth to the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, they have remained committed to helping complete the vision. The region also enjoys some of the most respected, skilled and well-funded land trusts in the nation that partner with the Council where our land acquisition needs overlap. Collectively, these public and private agencies have already acquired much of the land needed for the next 100 miles of the Ridge Trail. Some of the partners involved in the Bay Area Ridge Trail include The Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the John Muir National Historic Site, the Presidio Trust, the California Coastal Conservancy, California State Parks, the California Department of Fish and Game, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara County Parks Department, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, San Mateo County Parks, the City of San Francisco, Marin County Open Space District, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Sonoma County Regional Parks, Napa County, Solano County, the Sonoma Land Trust, Solano Land Trust, the Land Trust of Napa County, East Bay Municipal Utility District, San Francisco Water Department, Marin Municipal Water District. The Bay Area Ridge Trail creates many public benefits from helping to preserve uplands habitat and watershed lands, protecting scenic vistas valued by communities and providing the public with access to these vista points. By preserving a corridor of green land, the trail also helps define the edges of urban development, while creating managed ways for the urban public to enjoy these open areas. Through their involvement in building, maintaining and enjoying the Ridge Trail, trail users, community members, and private landowners can be given an opportunity to give back to their community and steward the land. The trail also helps with environmental restoration as it can be sited in a way to reduce environmental damage while providing access to the outdoors. The trail provides a recreational outlet in an increasingly dense metropolitan region; and increasing the health and well being of all who use the trail, a critical component in addressing the public health concern of obesity. And, in some cases, it can provide an alternative to using a private auto to travel from one's home to school or place of business. I commend the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and its partners on completing the 300th mile of the Bay Area Ridge Trail on June 3, 2006, in conjunction with National Trails Day and wish the Council and all its partners continued success with this important effort.