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

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3535. the Shark Finning Prohibition Act that is authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke in the well. Shark finning is currently one of the most visible and controversial conservation issues in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. While the practice of finning has already been banned in Federal waters in the Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico. and the Caribbean. as well as waters of 11 coastal States. it remains unregulated in the Pacific. As a result. and because of the strong demand and the high price of shark fins in Asia. the harvest of shark fins in the Pacific has increased over the past 7 years by more than 2.000 percent. More than 60.000 sharks were. caught and killed in 1998 alone. and 98 percent of those sharks were killed simply for their fins. or less than 5 percent of their body weight. and then the shark was dumped overboard to die. This is wrong. It is culturally wrong. It is morally wrong. It is certainly wrong in terms of the laws of conservation and maintaining this species. In addition. shark finning is inconsistent with U.S. policy. both domestically and internationally. In the United States. it is contrary to the Magnuson Act which requires fisherman to reduce bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Given that 85 percent of the sharks caught are alive when they reach the boats. prohibiting the finning of these sharks will reduce bycatch by significant amounts. The Shark Finning .Prohibition Act will not prevent U.S. fishermen from harvesting sharks. bringing them to shore. and then using the fins or any of the other parts of the shark. Instead. it would simply prevent cutting off of the fins and. disposal of carcass at sea. or the transport or landing of fins harvested in this manner by another fishing vessel. This is good legislation. The House should support it. We should put an end to these kinds of very narrow and greedy practices by some nations that devastate. in this case. the shark species. but it is rampant in other parts of the world with respect to other species. This is a good legislation. The House should support it. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. it is with great admiration and great respect and high regard for my colleague. the gentleman from New Mexico . that I rise in support of the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Lands Transfer Act. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of S. 356. the WelltonMohawk Transfer Act. The WelltonMohawk has fully repaid its project costs. The district and the bureau signed a memorandum of agreement 2 years ago that covers the details of the transfer of title. The project facilities that will be transferred uider legislation no longer provide benefits to the United States. and it is appropriate that the local district assume full responsibility for these facilities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation to change the boundaries of the Coastal Barrier Resource System Unit established under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act known as NCO1. I believe that it is important that we contain the socalled technical corrections bills that we have seen in our committee to address those problems that are clear inaccuracies. I believe that this legislation does that. And it is also incumbent that those of us on the committee not use those technical corrections to go for unintended changes and make sure that they are held at a minimum. I think that this legislation does that. We see a lot of efforts from time to time to use boundary changes to do more than make these technical corrections. but this legislation does not do that. I think that this is consistent with the original intent of the Congress. and I urge passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3176. to provide for the study of the deterioration that has taken place on Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Could the gentleman tell me why we are just beginning to talk about this information since this has been available for a while?
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. this has been available now for at least 2 years. We have already talked about the fact that when people have a language problem or they live a long ways from where they might be able to get health care relief. it is usually the lowest income which means usually the least well educated. Has Texas taken on any leadership or responsibility to try to be sure that we can spread the word to the persons who are eligible?
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. according to the New York Times. on Sunday. May 21 of this year. Texas had not spent any of the dollars allocated to take care of these children that are poor.
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. reclaiming my time. statistics tell us that more and more children are being absent from school because of asthma. and yet. it has been determined that we have one of the worst environments in the Nation. so bad that Oklahoma is complaining that we are polluting parts of Oklahoma. If we have this available and not making any effort to cover the children while we are also providing an environment that is conducive to making them even more unhealthy. what does this tell us? Is there any compassion in Texas?
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. reclaiming my time. there has been a whole legislative session that has come and gone since these dollars have been available. and as of May 21 of this year. we had not used any of the dollars allocated for Texas. Can the gentleman think of any reason why we have denied these children the right to health care when there is nothing standing in the way between them and health care enrollment?
Date: 2000-06-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the gentleman from Texas could not be here. but he left a statement. I notice in the statement. in his congressional district. which is also in the Houston area. at least 70 percent of the children in the Aldine School District rely on the school nurse for primary health care services. or as their initial health care provider. That does not have to be. and it should not have to be. We have too many children who are not getting any kind of attention in Texas. We cannot allow this to continue. It is ironic that we talk about how great we are. this big. wonderful State. with the greatest prosperity in the history of the State. We have all of these children starting out. without the availability of health care. a full life perhaps with chronic illnesses because they do not have access to the care that they deserve. and they can have it. They would have it if we had a Texas government that had enough compassion to enroll them in the program. Nobody wishes to be poor. no one wishes to be uneducated. no one wishes to be a long ways from various health care outlets. But when that happens. the entire State ought to have access to that care. They need to be informed and they need to be enrolled. This is simply not the time to turn our heads and pretend this is not going on. It is not the time to simply say to poor kids. get back. be quiet. you might make us look bad. We have got to give attention to these poor kids who are kids of working parents. lowincome parents. who do not have access to health care that taxpayers are willing to pay for. The money is available. Texas has access to the money and refuses to use it. Is that compassion. I ask the Members? Is this America? This is not what we stand here and fight for. and what we fund each day. We tried to be very sure that when welfare reform came. that our poor kids would not fall through the cracks. We did our part at this level. It is time for the State of Texas to. look up and acknowledge that though we have much wealth. we have the largest number of poor kids being neglected. In a State where you can hardly breathe the air. we have kids who are getting their lungs injured every day simply because they do not have access to care that has been paid for. We simply refuse to use it. Mr. Speaker. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in making a plea to the State of Texas. my home State. I was born in the State and I know the State. I served there in the House and in the Senate. This callousness must not continue. and certainly we must not allow it to spread in this Nation. Mr. Speaker. I include for the RECORD the statement of the gentleman from Texas . The statement referred to is as follows:
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest this morning to people talking about the anniversary of the BYRD death. and I started to think. why is it that we sit here in Congress and profess how far America has come. how great the prosperity is. and how we have grown economically and socially? Is it not time. then. for America to grow morally? For those who fear to answer this question. I will answer it for them. The time is now. Over a year ago. the bipartisan Hate Crimes Prevention Act was introduced. This legislation will make it easier for Federal authorities to assist in the prosecution of racial. religious. and ethnic violence. It has been referred to a subcommittee. Why have we not done more? Instead of doing more to strengthen hate crime legislation. members of society with no sense of remorse are killing those who they believe to be inferior to them. Most people that are born do not have anything to do with their race. not a whole lot to do with their religion because their parents are the ones who help to determine that. and certainly not their sexual orientation. Let us move. Mr. Speaker. Let us pass this legislation.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. and he has been a wonderful supporter of the environment. This is different than the process that he might be familiar with. as the gentleman said. in Maryland or even in many parts of California any longer. The threshold for wilderness is very. very high. That is why we go through extensive studies.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman would continue to yield. I would invite the gentleman to read the Wilderness Act. because that threshold is quite properly set. because we cannot achieve the quality that the gentleman from Washington talked about. and others have experienced. by simply changing designations. It is about a place. It is about the quality of the place. It is about a place that is untrammeled. And that is why. as we go through these areas in Utah or California or anywhere else and we look at them. they are taken in consideration with their surroundings. So if ORVs have gone crazy in the meantime. or people have punched in roads. or mining claims have been established. they are not qualified for wilderness because we cannot achieve the qualities in the Wilderness Act. As the West continues to fill up with people at the rate that it is. the preservation of these qualities is .more and more difficult. I am not lecturing the gentleman. because the gentleman appreciates this. But my point is that the Boehlert amendment does not go to these areas that were cut out by an arbitrary county line and so we start to lose those qualities here. and they impact on the wilderness study areas on the other side of the line. That is the tragedy of the amendment.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Inslee amendment because I think. absent the Inslee amendment. we do not have the kind of package here that is necessary. The Boehlert amendment does not fully protect the lands to the south. In fact. some of the wilderness areas are. in fact. split by that amendment. The point here between the Udall amendment and.the Inslee amendment is to. in fact. provide the kind of protection that is necessary to maintain the potential wilderness qualities of these areas by designating them as wilderness study areas and expanding the boundary. I appreciate apparently mining is okay. good enough for the wilderness areas inside the boundary study areas. but it is not good enough for the areas outside the study. Let us be consistent here. I would prefer we did not have mines in either one of them. The fact it exists. and that is why it is a study area to see whether or not it can meet the definition of wilderness. Wilderness is not something that we go back and we create. Wilderness either exists or it does not exist. and we designate it. We do not create it. It was created by the creator. if you will. at this point. The question is whether or not wehave the ability to recognize it and to protect it. As I said. it is a difficult and a tough threshold. If one would read the definition of wilderness. in contrast to those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man. where man himself is a visitor and does not remain. and it goes on with the characteristics. These areas are tougher and tougher to find. The gentleman from Utah raises a number of concerns that we obviously have as we look at these wilderness areas. as a number of them probably will not qualify. Although that particular area may have great environmental value. but when put into this definition. it may in fact not qualify because of preexisting activities that are there. That is why the current protection is so important because those activities will continue on. They continue on with a lesser level of protection. and then that is used as evidence to suggest why that area cannot be designated as wilderness because it is already fully trammeled by man. It is fully under restraints because of the activities of man. The gentleman from New Jersey
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman is referring to his amendment. This is not about precluding that as the gentleman characterized. The gentlemans amendment goes to wildnerness study areas and to roadless areas. There is obviously a reason for that. One. you should not be punching into these roadless areas. and. two. the other one is that the reason it is a wildnerness study area is because it is under study as to whether or not Congress in the future will so designate it. If you are running around it on ORVs. it is never going to be designated.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. The point being. the gentleman from Utah is quite correct. This is the problem. This is why we worry. When we reject all these amendments and adcept the bill or accept the bill with the Boehlert amendments. we are allowing additional wilderness areas to continue to suffer degradation by what goes on around them. As the tentleman points out. people go off. because this is nota place where it is clearly signed or it is fenced or it is any of these other things. People will go off sometimes because they innocently leave an area and sometimes because they are just simply irresponsible. But the fact of the matter is we know how- this goes. I ride ORVs. My sons have done it. We race motorcycles. A trail becomes a road pretty soon. There is a new area and away people go. The fact of the matter is if we are going to prevent that. we have got to have a policy. At least then people can see you designate it on the lands. on the maps that they are wildnerness study areas. you cannot go in there. Because while the Secretary precluded and closed some roads in the wildnerness study areas. what he did not do was close the wildnerness study areas to future activity. That is not what these regulations do. The Boehlert amendment with all due respect is the current law. It is the current law that has got us into this situation. This Secretary.. this BLM is the reason we are here today because for 10 years they have not figured out how to do this. Now they are saying trust us. We are saying. fine. we will trust you. but we are not going to trust you in terms of continuing to degrade the wildnerness study areas. What the gentleman from New Jerseys amendment does is take those wildnerness study areas and say you can ride ORVs everywhere else that the Secretary will agree to and the BLM in the other adjoining areas that are not protected. but stay out of here until Congress makes the determination. The same is true with roadless areas. I think that that is a fair compromise. It is a fair compromise because it allows for the protection of these areas and allows for responsible continued ORV activities. That is why we should accept this amendment. With all due respect. the Boehlert amendment is the bill. The bill is the law. the current law. So we have not progressed at all except to leave it in the hands of the BLM. leave it in the hands of the Secretary. and with all due respect. it is that 10 years that has given us these photographs that have taken place.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

These are not designated wilderness. These are study areas. They can be withdrawn from study areas. That is how we resolve the conflict. But right now we leave those areas open and that is unacceptable.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

In all cases we are not talking about roads. We are talking about ORV activity that does notin all due respect rise to the occasion of a road. but it rises to the occasion of degrading the area. This is not a fight over the county roads and who owns these roads. This is about a lot of activity that takes place like in the term offroad vehicle.
Date: 2000-06-07
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I understand what the gentleman is talking about. but there is a clear distinction. We can go back to the photographs. The gentleman has seen it. I have been out in the area. I have witnessed it. This does not rise to the occasion of a trail or road. This rises to the occasion of random activities and riding through areas that are repeated time and again. That is the kind of protection that we are trying to provide in this amendment.
Date: 2000-06-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. I find it interesting when we are talking about a program to try and provide technical assistance to some of the poorest nations and some of the poorest people on Earth that the gentleman would come down and make a case for giving 2 percent of the richest people maybe on the face of the Earth a tax cut worth almost $400 billion. But that is why we do not have the money to deal with this program. because they have already made their decisions. It is not the gentleman from Illinois
Date: 2000-06-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated for:
Date: 2000-06-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I understand it perfectly. I understand shutin wells. I have shutin wells all over California. We shut in the Bakersfield.
Date: 2000-06-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. we had oil that you could not give away and at the right price it became one of the most valuable fields in the entire State. in the entire Nation. I understand people shut in their wells. But let us not pretend that it is a lack of this research that shuts in those wells. People make an economic decision and that is the marketplace. I have been through this cycle. I have been through this with all of the oil companies in my district. with all of this research to inject. We have been through it in Prudhoe Bay. We have been up there. and we have talked to them about means to make the oil process more efficient. That is what the oil companies are doing. because it is in their interest to do the enhanced recovery. the tertiary recovery. all of those programs. That is what they are doing. It is in their interest. also. It is in their interest also to collect it from the mom and pops.