macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman. I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive. I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think. also. the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not. and that is that it is not a regulatory process. it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains. where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill. we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that. it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California. whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers. whether it is the drinking water for our cities. because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off. we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right. if we stop this process. if we kill this process. then we go back to the status quo. And the status quo. it is a nobrainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains. on the western side. where they had chaos. where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is. can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this. may continue the viability of the basin. . This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being. because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this. in fact. the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat. to the watersheds. to the species. and. therefore. they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is. all parts of the puzzle recognize that. with a comprehensive management plan. they in fact are in a better place than what they would be.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. I am arguing that what we have learned is that. absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins. the large systems. whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system. absent that. what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. I think that is the case. Listen. they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side. from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan. but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an ecowide system. So that plan is serious. serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean. maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s. we had total chaos.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. and obviously. the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I say to the gentleman on tuna dolphin. the Government did not follow the law. They failed to do the studieg but went ahead with the action and the judge said. no. the law says you have to do the studies. do the studies.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the motion was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Let me say to the gentleman that that debate between him and the President. this President. or any President. between the Committee on Appropriations. and any administration is an honest debate. That is about priorities. This is not about a priority. This is about a political trick. Fortunately. the chairman is not engaged in it. And we appreciate that.
Date: 2000-06-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from Florida has this exactly right. The Indians had this right to unilaterally engage in gaming as a result of the Cabazon tribe. This Congress came and stepped in and created a process which would involve the States to try to develop compacts for class 3 gaming and. therefore. restricted the rights of the Indian tribes. What we have now seen is that in those States and in my own State for several years where the Indians have had that right. they have worked on that right. the States have simply refused to negotiate in good faith with those tribes. We recognize that the States have sovereignty. and that is exactly what IGRA was designed to do. as the gentleman from Arizona said. It was designed to create a basis in which we could deal with the impasse between those tribes. That is what was attempted in this case. The States sued. We developed a sovereignty. And that is the point in which the Secretary is supposed to do it. The States have now come along and sued as to whether or not the Secretary has any authority to do this. And this is again tampering restriction with the rights of the tribes under IGRA and under the basic rights in the Cabazon case. I would urge that we oppose this amendment.
Date: 2000-06-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Californ

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank t gentleman very much for his remarl and I thank the gentleman from Ca fornia for the amendmei as well as the gentleman from Ca fornia for his su port. and the others who have spok on this amendment. I rise in strong support of ti amendment. Unfortunately. I guess point of order has been raised again it. But I agree. I would hope that t authorizing committee would repc this legislation out so that these Fi pino veterans would get what is in fa due to them under the promises th we have made. and I look forward working with the others supportii this matter.
Date: 2000-06-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman very much for his commentson AmeriCorps and for the case that he has made. It is essentially unbelievable. for those of us who know the role AmeriCorps plays in so many of our communities. as the gentleman points out. whether it is mentoring our children or helping our communities with substance abuse problems or working with communities to organize themselves and to make positive contributions. Recently in Vallejo. California. I had a chance to work with our community organization that is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called Fighting Back. AmeriCorps volunteers came in to help the community organize neighborhood cleanups and substance abuse programs. We have worked in a number of different programs around Vallejo. In each case. after we had finished spending the weekend in those communities cleaning up. getting .rid of the junk. getting rid of the old cars. getting the shrubbery cut back and all the rest of it. the contacts and the calls to the police department plummeted in those communities. Where there used to be drug dealing on the street. where there used to be abuse in the families. contacts with criminal activity in the neighborhood. they went down by 30 and 40 percent in those neighborhoods because of the work of the AmeriCorps volunteers to go in. to organize community watch programs. neighborhood watch programs. programs for schoolchildren. programs on substance abuse. There were dramatic changes in these neighborhoods basically run by volunteers with the coordination AmeriCorps brings to those. Talk about costeffective. in terms of just the savings to emergency responses. in that one city we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars that has been saved in that effort because of AmeriCorps volunteers. To zero out their funding is just to simply turn our backs on these communities. and to turn our backs on young Americans. for the most part. but older Americans. too. who are doing what we say is the best of what we want in our citizens. and that is to volunteer. These are people who come in and coordinate and get those kinds of community involvement that we all aspire to in our own communities. So I thank the gentleman very much for raising this issue and discussing this.
Date: 2000-06-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

If the gentleman will continue to yield. earlier this evening some were fortunate enough to go over to the Library of Congress and listen to a young teacher. the California teacher of the year.
Date: 2000-06-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. she was head of the New York corporation. the Americorps Corporation. I believe the gentleman was from Buffalo. They had been taking about what they had been able to do in terms of AmeriCorps volunteers in the classrooms to help with these difficult schools. to help with students and to reclaim these students lives because of the attention these AmeriCorps volunteers were able to provide. two young students who were turning their lives around. She wrote a rather remarkable book about the Freedom Riders and what happened- in Long Beach. and she is now out replicating that in schools of education and with AmeriCorps volunteers all across the country. Yet. we are saddled this evening with seeing that is zeroed out. and obviously it is a national program zeroed out in this budget. zeroed out in California. in New York. in the State of Washington. It is a tragedy that we would not capitalize on the resources that these young people in the Americorps Corporation bring to civic life in America. I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue.
Date: 2000-06-21
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker. although. I do not think that withdrawing from WTO is the best course of action right now. the organization must be dramatically reformed to continue. to enjoy U.S. support. In. addition to incorporating -labor rights and environmental protection. the WTO needs to become far more transparent to operate in full public view. Dispute settlement proceedings need to be opened to -the public. Civil society needs to be allowed into the process. Developing countries need to be able to funy participate. But lack of transparency is not just a problem in the WTO. It is a problem in the U.S. relationship with the WTO. Trade policy in this country operated behind closed doors. only a few special interests making decisions for the entire country. Most of the advisory committees that guide the President of the United States on trade policy are made up solely of industry representatives. The meetings are closed to the public. The process is not transparent. It is not democratic. and it is not right. The recent court decision said that two Forest Industry Sector Advisory Committees need to include environmental representative. That is what the court says in terms of the publics right to know. This is progress. but it is not enough. There are still too many committees on tobacco. on chemicals. on all aspects of trade. that are comprised only of industry representatives. And even in a few instances where labor or the environment is actually represented. it is simply a token effort. Labor. human rights. environmental. and the public need an equal seat at the table. Before the U.S. decides to challenge another countrys health or environmental standards as a barrier to trade. we need an open and transparent process. That means before the U.S. -lobbies against the EU plan to protect kids - from toxic toys. there should be public involvement. The U.S. agency should *not just be doing the bidding of industry. they should be representing- all Americans. That is what transparency is all about. I urge my colleagues and the administration to push for greater transparency in the WTO and also in our process here at home that leads up to these trade agreements.
Date: 2000-06-21
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. let me express my appreciation again to the committee and subcommittee chairs for. their effort. but it is time to set the record straight. This is what we need the most to keep the rich rich and to provide for educational opportunities for young people coming along so we can stop having to lift the caps of HiB visas to bring people over here to do the job. This is the area that provides for that research and provides for the support of teachers and who get our young people educated so that they can enter this marketplace. Mr. Chairman. it is time for us to stop faking an attempt to tell the real truth. The very rich in this country have not begged for this tax break. We are trying to cut all the basic things in order to save the money to give this tax cut for the very. very rich. We have made them have the opportunity for this wealth by this very research that can be done right here with these dollars. Mr. Chairman. $500 million is merely a drop in the bucket for what we will get in return. Every dollar we haveever put in research has come back fourfold. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment. It will restore over $500 million cut by the underlying bill from the Presidents historic budget proposal for the National Science Foundation. The increase will bolster the activities of an agency with a critically important role in sustaining the nations capabilities in science and engineering research and education. Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy that far exceed the public investment. One striking example is information technology. which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly cited as primarily responsible for the nations sparkling economic performance. Applications of information technology alone account for onethird of U.S. economic growth. and create jobs that pay almost 80 percent more than the average privatesector wage. Restoring funding for NSF is important for the overall health of the nations research en-
Date: 2000-06-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. the gentleman from Pennsylvania has properly explained the bill. and I am pleased to rise in support of this important legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska. As Members of this body know. the chairman of the Committee on Resources is a forceful advocate for his Alaska constituents. The bill before the House today is improved in numerous respects from the version reported by the committee last April. As a result of the changes made to accommodate NOAAs concerns. it is my understanding the administration now supports the bill as amended. There is also an attempt here to strike a responsible balance in this bill. There are now caps in the amounts authorized for the economic assistance grants to the Aleut Natives and to local governments. and I urge the Members of the House to support the bill. Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-06-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I support S. 148. the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. and have cosponsored its companion in the House with the chairman of the Committee on Resources. the gentleman from Alaska . As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out. this is a rather dramatic migration of billions of birds that takes place every year. but the populations of many of these birds are. in fact. threatened. This legislation is designed to take a proactive approach to reversing the decline of the neotropical migratory birds populations. Mr. Speaker. I urge the House to support this bill. Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-06-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. the Atlantic striped bass is an important commercial and recreational fish found along the U.S. East Coast from the Saint Lawrence River in Canada to the Saint Johns River in Florida. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act was first passed in 1984. and since then has been an effective mechanism for enforcing the interstate fishery management plan for the striped bass. and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this. legislation.
Date: 2000-06-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. the gentleman from Pennsylvania has explained the bill. There is not much more to say about this bill. It is a simple land transfer bill. and the land will be conveyed at a price that fairly reflects the value of the property. I urge our colleagues to support the legislation.
Date: 2000-06-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. on behalf of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary on this side. today we rise in strong support of this legislation but we must also say that we consider this legislation an insult in the sense that it provides only 3 additional months for protection under Chapter XII of the Bankruptcy Code. While I seriously doubt anyone will vote against this bill. it is shameful that we are being asked to play games yet again with the future of family farmers in America as we are witnessing one of the worst farm crisis since the birth of Chapter XII more than a decade ago. No one disagrees that Chapter XII should be made permanent. No one. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in the other body by Senators GRASSLEY and DAScHLE and in the House by our colleagues. the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Michigan . Those bills also increase the eligibility of threshold from the current $1.5 million in aggregate debt to $3 million and give certain tax debts nonpriority status if the debtor completes the plan. The National Bankruptcy Review Commission recommended increasing the threshold and making Chapter XII permanent. and all three provisions in those bills have been endorsed in a joint statement by the Commercial Law League of America. and National Bankruptcy Conference and the Natio.nal College of Bankruptcy. Unfortunately. it seems that the secret shadow conference has betrayed family farmers and will not include all of these provisions in the final bankruptcy legislation that is now lumbering through the process. This stealth conference. which excludes the minority and makes decisions with industry lobbyists outside public view will. we are told. attempt to sneak its work into an unrelated conference report. No member of the public will have an opportunity to review this secret bill before the vote. Anything could be in it. We will not know until it is too late. In fact. the sponsor of this legislation introduced a measure earlier in this Congress which would have extended Chapter XII by 6 months past the sunset date rather than merely by the 3 months in this legislation. He then introduced a bill granting only an additional 3 months. Evidently this more modest effort found favor with the Republican leadership. It attracted the cosponsorship of the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Commercial and Administrative Law and was given a fast track. Today we are repeating that farce by extending Chapter XII for another 3 months. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin
Date: 2000-06-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from California for offering this amendment. He has outlined the kind of damage that the committee budget does to the National Marines Fisheries Service. I would just point out that the budget for Fisheries Stock Assessment and Management programs will hinder our conservation efforts and hurt the commercial fishing industry on our Pacific Coast. In California. where we are facing the collapse of our groundfish stocks. the ability to collect data and to fund an observer program will be critical to the survival of this fishery and the fishing industry. But this is not just a West Coast problem. however. Throughout the United States. fish stocks have become depleted. wetlands that are important nursery areas for young fish stocks are being destroyed and damaged due to pollution and human encroachment. At such a critical time. it seems illogical to cut the programs that fund the ocean and marine science that will lead to a better stewardship of our oceans and the sustainable use of these ocean resources. This modest amendment is far below the administrations request for what they thought was necessary for NOAA. I urge the Members of Congress to support this amendment. This can have a longterm. devastating impact on the commercial fisheries. which are basically made up of small business people running their boats. running their family operations. and if we cannot keep these stocks up into healthy populations. then those people will be put out of business and they will lose their livelihood for themselves and their families and for their communities. I thank the gentleman from California for offering the amendment.