macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2000-05-09
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I am in support of this legislation to address the issue of international sex trade. I thank the author. Mr. SMITH. for offering this legislation and. the Committee on International Relations for bringing it to the floor for discussion. The approach of this legislation is admirable. It sets up a process whereby the United States will motivate other countries to strengthen their laws with regard to the illegal trafficking of women for sex. It recognizes that women and children from poorer nations are the primary targets for the sex trade industry. They are often lured into a scheme of travel. opportunity. and jobs. only to find themselves as indentured servants and sex slaves. They are isolated and have no means of escape. The legislation addresses this issue and provides a mechanism for the U.S. to withhold nonhumanitarian aid to those countries which refuse to be proactive in their approach to help stop human trafficking from happening. Foreign countries must meet a minimum criteria to protect against illegal trafficking and to prosecute those individuals that profit from this despicable business. Along with providing states and territories with funding to establish programs designed to assist victims. H.R. 3422 also allows for victims to seek a change in their residential status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that they can become permanent residents of the United States while seeking redress from their abusers. The problem is this bill will not help the victims of sexual slavery in the U.S. territory of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (US/CNMI) where the INA does not apply. Just last month. the Central Intelligence Agency released a report entitled. International Trafficking in Women to the United States: A Contemporary Manifestation of Slavery and Organized Crime. The report identifies the CNMI as a United States locality used by international criminal organizations to import women for the sex industry. The US/CNMI is used both as a transfer point and a point of destination for human smugglers. Unfortu* nately. local enforcement of immigration in the CNMI has been unable and unwilling to halt this importation of sexual slaves. In fact. local immigration just permitted the importation of 300 young women from Russia to work in a new casino in the US/CNMI purportedly as waitresses and public relations staff even though none of them speak English. The Republican leadership of this House has consistently refused to address the human rights abuses in the US/CNMI and now this legislation neglects to assist its victims. We need to be sure that as we encourage other countries to address the issue of illegal trafficking of women in the sex industry that we also make ourselves and our system a model for countries to look upon. The first and perhaps the easiest step is to make sure we protect victims of this industry beneath our own flag.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

If the gentleman will yield further. the gentleman is correct. Tracts leased after the date of enactment are not relevant to the operation of the allocation formula in either section 101(b) or understanding of thp gentleman from Alaska ?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan . without whose cooperation and reputation the meetings by which this bill emerged probably would never have happened. I thank him for that.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. a further inquiry. if I might. Could the chair tell us. my plan is to yield myself 2 minutes. yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska to use as he chooses. and he can close.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I know that the gentleman from Ohio has struggled long and hard over many years with the problems of moratorium in his committee. but each and every time this Congress has decided that it would not punish those States that had a moratorium. Also. as the gentleman from Alabama points out. it causes problems for States like Alaska. California and Alabama. where we are still producing. but we have moratoriums. Those moratoriums were put there by Republican governors. Republican presidents and State legislatures. and that is what the elected officials decided. As the gentleman from New York
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I think taking the same tact as my chairman the gentleman from Alaska . the purpose for this and in discussing this with supporters of PILT was to make sure that the Committee on Appropriations would continue to fund PILT to the level. But recognizing. as the gentleman from California pointed out. that they have not funded it at full funding. we would then match up to $200 million. So they are at $135 million. Full funding is $247 million. We would add $112 million to bring them to full funding. But they have got to continue their effort. So. as it is indexed. that would change. So this was an effort by many of the people in the committee. as my colleague knows. who support PILT. And in the communities that support it. this was an effort to see whether or not we could take two pools of money and get us there to full funding. Because the likelihood is. if we do not do that. we all know what happens in the Committee on Appropriations. their demands are much greater than the revenues that are available to them and we willnever get to full funding.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. it would match the appropriations funding up to $200 million. In this instance we are full funding this $247 million. They do $135 million. We would do $112 million. to take them to $247 million.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. that is right. Because. otherwise. the appropriators walk away from their obligation on PILT and CARA inherits it. We are trying to augment that.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. that is how the law is written. Unless appropriations just put nothing in. That is why the match is in. to keep appropriations in the game.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I say to the gentleman. no. The appropriators have to do their share. as they are doing today. which is $135 million. or whatever. Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana .
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the fact is. in recent years Federal ownership of land has been going down. so that is the trend. that is the trend. Mr. Chairman. if I can finish my answer.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I see the gentleman from Ohio standing there. This discussion about we own too much land. the gentleman from Ohio tells us this year that? the demands from Members of Congress far exceed what this committee could do. that over the vast majority of this Congress go before that committee and they ask. would the Federal government please purchase this inholding. will they expand this boundary. will they provide this new section of park. will they provide this unit? That is the fact of the matter. That is the democratic process. Members of Congress represent their constituents and make these requests. In recent years. the total land mass has gone down. I think we should trade out and swap out more lands. I agree with all of that. The fact of the matter is. it is Members of Congress and Members of the Senate. that believe that these acquisitions should be made. these inholdings should be bought.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

No. we are going to come right back to the gentleman to get that long list. The gentleman will be so happy as an appropriator.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise to claim the time in opposition. and I ask unanimous consent that the time be split with the gentleman from Alaska .
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are going to have a whole series of amendments this evening that are offered by opponents of the legislation to essentially try to gut the legislation. This amendment. in fact. is flawed and it is trying to obviously use. as so many have from time to time on this floor. the emotionalism of Social Security. Mr. Chairman. as we know already. there is the pledge by the President. there is a pledge by the Democrats. the Republicans. the leadership on both sides of the aisle. the leadership in both Houses that there is a lockbox proposal that Soeial Security will not be invaded. This would suggest that CBO is supposed to certify that to eliminate the debt by 2013. CBO tells us they cannot certify any such thing. They can tell us. as they do now. their best estimates of where we are going and where we are at a particular time in terms of deficit reduction. as we have experienced over the last several years in the size of the surplus. This is simply an effort by opponents to kill this legislation. We have a number of programs where we spend money automatically. whether it is RobinsonPittman. whether it is the crime legislation and all the rest of that. and nobody for a moment believes that the Congress is going to do that at the expense of Social Security. The reason. one of the reasons this Congzress has done so little legislatively is that we have a clear commitment to using the deficit to protect Social Security. to protect Medicare. and to pay down the debt. Due to our good fortunes. we also have the ability to fund a program such as this and I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would say the whole point is to stop the funding. That isthe situation we have today. That -is the situation by which Congress took $13 billion out of what was supposed to be spent and went off and spent it on something else. And the gentleman from Alaska is correct. No money would be spent unless we could certify that we going to eliminate the national debt by 2013. The very people the gentleman tells us to certify it say they cannot certify any such thing. Remember. 6 years ago. we thought we were going to have $300 billion deficits as far as the eye could see. is what they said. And now people want to tell us that we are going to have surpluses as far as the eye can see now of $300 billion. So the CBO is trying to say that we cannot certify that. And if they cannot certify that. none of this money can be spent for any of these purposes. And that is the gentlemans intent because the gentleman opposes the bill.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. I simply rise again in opposition to this amendment. recognizing that the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that no funds can ever be spent under this program. Because what this amendment says. it needs to be certified. The gentleman from Arizona knows very well the CBO has told us they simply cannot certify that.. So in absence of that certification. it has nothing to do with Social Security. it has nothing to do with Medicare. it has to do with the fact that they have to certify something that is 13 years in advance. They cannot certify that. That is the reason why this amendment is designed to kill this bill. This would kill the funding. I guess maybe this is a fight among the appropriators and everybody else where they apparently can spend money and take everything else into consideration. but we cannot do that with this legislation because it does not run every nickel through their committee. I think the point is this. this is simply an amendment to strike this legislation. and it is to try to do it using the emotionalism of Social Security and all of the rest of that. The fact of the matter is we know that people value these programs. They think that we have been derelict in our duty in responding to the needs for these conservation measures. We ought to oppose this amendment for what it is. It is an effort to kill this legislation. Madam Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. I rise in opposition to this legislation. I think this amendment is a bit off the mark here. the concern here is with the President using the authority that he has under the Antiquities Act to establish monuments. There is nothing in this legislation that gives us the opportunity to do that. We do not have the authority to do that. only the President has the authority to do that. I think the problem occurs. and this may even be a problem for people who have these monuments in their districts. that is. conceivably under this act. under title VI. some monies might be used for restoration and maintenance. now you have created two classes of antiquities. We can use it for all of the existing antiquities. but for those since 1995. we cannot. In Utah. where they have this massive track of Federal lands out there. the monies cannot be used to take care of it. to restore it or to maintain it. and that would also be true I guess in California. where I know local citizens are concerned about exactly that effort. now that it is in antiquities how will it be managed. and conceivably some of these funds could be used for that purpose. I think the gentlewoman is sort of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here and using the idea that somehow Congress can use the Antiquities Act. when Congress has no ability. no authority to use the Antiquities Act. I do not know if the gentlewoman wants to withdraw the amendment or wants to go ahead with it. but it clearly misses the mark. I think it creates a worse problem for people who already have these. because clearly we cannot establish them. In Utah and in .Colorado and Arizona. where they have them. I think they would like to know that they could have some ability to take them. The gentleman from Utah has indicated already the substantial increase in tourists and others who are going to this area. which is a burden on the State in terms of maintenance. that is why I do not know if this is what the gentlewoman really wants to do. The gentlewoman ought to take the first part out. because there is no authority in law for us to do that.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Reclaiming my time. Madam chairman. the amendment is in order. It is fine. But the President has the authority under the Antiquities Act to do this. There is nothing in this bill that establishes any authority for us under the- Antiquities Act because it does not pertain to us. The gentlewoman is welcome to the amendment.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Once again reclaiming my limited time. I appreciate that. All I am saying is for Representatives who have had these established in their areas. I am not sure this is what they want to do. to cut off the money for those areas. because that is the law now. Nobody here is offering to repeal the Utah one or the California one or the Arizona one. So now they have to be maintained because there is increased traffic and tourism and all the rest going to these areas. So the gentlewoman now wants to cut off the ability. by chance. to use this money for the purposes of maintenance or restoration. Madam Chairman. I urge opposition to the amendment.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chairman. the gentleman from Louisiana has just accurately explained the situation within CARA. We went around and around on this in the negotiations for many. many days and many. many hours. and we provided exactly the protection that the gentleman from California says that he wants. What we could not assure. as the gentleman from Louisiana has pointed out. we could not assure him that other laws of the United States would not come into play. such as clean air and clean water. If they have a national park and somebody on the boundary of that national park wants to put in a gas station and they want to sell gas with MTBE. and we now know that leaks into the groundwater. under the Clean Water Act. under the Clean Air Act. they might be able. like any other landowner. to say. I do not want them to do this. they are infringing on my property rights. And -one thing we said was that we could not diminish the right of the Federal Government that other property owners have. If they have a piece of property and a person comes along and they want to put in a smelting plant. they might want to know what the air quality coming out the smokestack is. So -would the National Park Service. If they want to put in a mine. if there is going to be toxic waste in that mine that goes through and into a river that runs through one of our national parks. the National Park Service may want to ask some questions about that. That is under the other laws. But in and of this act. they do not get to impose the burdens on property owners. That is what was hammered out. and the gentleman from Louisiana has explained it perfectly right. That is the agreement that was handed out. But we are not going to use CARA to waive the Clean Air Act. to waive the Clean Water Act. to waive the Superfund legislation. That is not what CARA is going to be used for. CARA. with this amendment. would be used as a battering ram by landowners against other basic environmental laws in this Nation. And that is not what is to be done. If somebody wants to do that some day when the Clean Air Act is on the floor or the Clean Water Act. they can hammer that out. But they cannot use the Pombo language to strike down the basic environmental laws of this Nation. We have protected the landowner from CARA. We have protected those people. The one incident that the gentleman from California brought to our attention. in fact inside that refuge line vineyards have been planted. wineries have been started. subdivisions have been started. homes have been remodeled. All of these activities have been carried on. Because you do not have the right to do that without just compensation. as the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Louisiana pointed out. Madam Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is very interesting rhetoric. He says if you own .some land inside of a green space. Yes. if you have an inholding inside of Yellowstone Park or Yosemite Park or Grand Tetons or the Everglades. there are other laws on the books that keep you from strip mining inside of that park. from oil and gas development inside of that park. because of the impact on the parks. the national park system of this country. Waste disposal. You do not get to just create waste disposal. You do not get to create a toxic site and have it run off your land. The fact of the matter is under this legislation. CARA gives no authority to regulate as the gentleman from Louisiana pointed out in his opening remarks. No authority to do that. There are other laws. There are -other laws on the books such as Clean Air and Clean Water. the mining act. mining in the park lands. Those laws still continue to apply. That is just a matter of a good neighbor. All we are saying is that there is nothing in CARA that expands that authority. They cannot shut down your inn. If they do. they owe you just compensation. That is the way the Constitution of the United States exists. This amendment ought to be rejected because it is designed to undercut the other basic laws of the land that might apply to those lands that have nothing to do with CARA.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

guage going into CARA says as a prin- Mr ChaRn I v t alancenof ciple of the expenditure of these funds. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of that only inholders need apply when it my time to close. tha ony ihoder ned aplywhe it Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. comes time to selling land to the gov- C rm I ye 2 emnsytoathe.genernment anywhere near a Federal Gov- Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the g eneminnt aywhre nar aFedral ovtleman from California . ernment reserve wildlife system or na- Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman. I thank tional forest service.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

ment. because this amendment now Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of says that that is our priority. we have my time. to go in and buy out those inholders.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all. let me state that Contra Costa County. which I represent is. in fact. qualified as a coastal county. The issue was whether or not they got that portion of funding under the legislation that dealt with the burdens. and the question there was the proximity. As the gentlewoman points out. this is not proximate to the production of the oil. but the fact of the matter is it is the home to six oil refineries which produce all of the various products from offshore oil that is drilled in California. Alaska and elsewhere. This is. an area of the country that has been impacted by explosions. by leaks. by toxic leaks. by toxic pollution and so it is a part of the cycle. if you will. of developing energy in this country that goes from exploration to refining to marketing. Because it happens to be located in one central area that is not on the coast. and the reason it is not on the coast is because it is on the bay in the deep water harbor. Otherwise it would be on the coast like in Los Angeles. Long Beach or elsewhere. It ought to be treated the same. because the citizens are there. and this is what the offshore oil revenues were about. was to deal with mitigation of burdens that communities suffer as a result of that . kind of activity. Here are all of the press clippings of all of the explosions. all of the toxics spills. all of the spills in the bay. the ships that have run aground. the barges that are broken open. the pipelines that have broken open. and this is just simply to provide the same kind of resources that a county would get if we had production and it was that proximate. Mr. Chairman. that is the purpose of it. I think it is clearly justified because so much of the West Coast and the Alaskan oil is. in fact. refined in this one county of California. So I would urge a defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.