George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last night the President laid out a blueprint that addresses the needs of America's family in his strong State of the Union address. He laid out a blueprint to start protecting Social Security and make sure that it is on financial safe footing in the 21st century. He laid out a plan for managed care reform that for the first time will make sure that those individuals who are receiving medical care through managed care are, in fact, getting the medical care that they need and that they deserve, given their ailments and not that which is decided by bookkeepers and CEOs and shareholders who have nothing to do with the delivery of medical care, those very same people who are overriding the judgment of doctors who ask that their patients be taken care of in one manner and the managed care organizations decide that they will not do that. That is what America's families need. He also addressed the need for expanded child care so that American families can continue to participate in the economic system of this country and support their families and know that their children are safe, know that their children are receiving child development and afterschool programs for these same children. Mr. Speaker, this is what America's families need. It is what the President addressed.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, along with Senator Barbara Boxer and others in California, I have long been raising strong concerns about Ward Valley, the proposed nuclear waste dump being promoted for southern California. Not only are there serious questions about the environmental safety of the proposed facility, but now legitimate questions have been raised about whether the dump is really required at all. Interior Secretary Babbitt and Deputy Secretary Garamendi have been taking the prudent approach, ordering additional environmental reviews based on credible questions about the potential leakage of highly radioactive wastes that could transmigrate and contaminate the Colorado River. Nuclear waste experts have declared that there is no need to build expensive new waste dumps as there is adequate storage capacity for low level wastes in existing facilities. The pressure to move forward is coming from Governor Wilson of California and several of the industries that are also adamant about building Ward Valley. But even executives of the company that wants to build and operate Ward Valley have told numerous congressional staffs that there is no national capacity shortage for low level nuclear wastes. Public opinion in California is growing in opposition to the Ward Valley facility. I hope that my colleagues will read the editorial from the Contra Costa Times of January 26 that rightly calls for caution before proceeding with this costly and potentially hazardous facility. [From the Contra Costa Times, Jan. 26, 1998] Use Caution in the Desert Neither Gov. Wilson nor anti-nuclear activists likes the idea of more testing at Ward Valley. But the Interior Department's plan to find out just how dangerous radioactive wastes are to the water supply merely makes good sense. The Interior Department last week approved the tests at Ward Valley, a 1000-acre stretch of desert in the Mojave Desert, 20 miles west of the Colorado River and the town of Needles. For more than a decade there have been plans to dispose of so-called ``low-level'' radioactive wastes on 80 acres at the site. The waste would come from California, Arizona and North and South Dakota. Low-level wastes include irradiated mice and gloves from research hospitals and pharmaceutical laboratories. There have been reports that Ward Valley also would get worn out parts from nuclear power plants, and materials with a ``half- life'' of 24,000 years. Currently nuclear waste is shipped for disposal at the nation's three dumps in Utah and South Carolina. Before the dump can be approved, and used, the federal government must turn over the land to the state government. The Clinton administration has balked from the start at doing this, citing safety concerns. The Colorado River, they note, is a drinking source for millions of people. Wilson claims enough tests have been run and that the site is safe. Clinton, noting leaks at dumps in Nevada, wants to be sure. His administration particularly wants to be convinced that the waste won't leach into groundwater 650 feet below the surface, and thence to the river. That is what the new tests would ascertain. While the discussion over safety has been burbling, information has surfaced that there may no longer be a need for Ward Valley, or for similar sites proposed for Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. A study by University of Nebraska economist Gregory Hayden asserts that there has been a 16-year decline in the volume of low level nuclear waste being disposed of in current dumps, and that their profitability would be threatened by Ward Valley. Some proponents of the dump have questioned Hayden's research. In addition, new technology allowing for wastes to be compressed has increased storage capacity at Utah and South Carolina. Given all these questions, it is hardly out of line to let the new tests proceed. And while the tests are going forth, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the desert's greatest friend in Congress, has called for studies to see if Ward Valley is necessary at all. That, too, is prudent, before the state spends a ton of money developing it. Ward Valley may yet end up as a site for disposing of nuclear waste. If it does, let's make sure that the materials to be deposited there pose no threat. Twenty-four thousand years is a long time for a water supply to be contaminated.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the House has been asked to consider this bill. This time we are being asked to pass this bill because the Senate has made three amendments to what was already a good bill. The underlying bill, which was sponsored by Congressman Kildee, authorizes the distribution of judgment funds awarded to several Ottawa and Chippewa tribes in Michigan. This bill was necessary as congressional action is required and these tribes have been awaiting this award ever since 1971. There was some question of the fairness of the distribution scheme between the recognized and nonrecognized tribes but that situation has been amicably resolved and made part of the underlying legislation. The Senate, however, has made three additional changes. The first changes a reference in the bill from the word ``tribe'' to ``band''. The second adds a reference to 25 U.S.C. 1407 which states that Indian judgment fund awards are not taxable. We are deleting this amendment as it falls within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. But it is the third amendment that is troubling. The third amendment will prevent the Indian Health Service from entering into a separate Indian Self-Determination Act contract--a 638 contract--with the Ketchikan Indian Corp. at the same time that it also has a regional 638 contract with the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation, a consortium of Southeast tribes that KIC once belonged to. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the waste of limited IHS funds through duplicative services at a nearby clinic run by KIC. While the IHS should not waste its limited resources, I am concerned that this provision further undercuts the Indian Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately the rights of Alaska Native villages have already been affected by the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill. Specifically, section 326 of that bill prohibited the IHS from entering into a separate 638 contract with an individual Alaska Native village when that village is located in a region already served by a regional 638 contractor. But this provision takes away the specific right of a Native entity under the Indian Self-Determination Act, namely, the right of KIC to decide for itself whether it wants to provide health care services to its members on its own pursuant to a 638 contract. Some choose to continue to receive health care services directly from IHS, others choose to execute their own 638 contracts, and yet others still join with neighboring tribes and villages into a regional consortium that has its own 638 contract with the IHS. I believe that there are already safeguards in the Indian Self- Determination Act that protect against wasteful or duplicative 638 contracts. The act clearly gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the right to decline a contract request when that is the case. In my view, Congress should not excise or restrict parts of the Indian Self-Determination Act simply because some Members do not agree with the administration on one contract. The act, which may be the most important piece of Indian legislation this Congress has passed in a generation, is simply too important to be changed in this manner. If there is a problem with the act, then let's hold hearings and respect the rights of the affected parties.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the California Advisory Council on Indian Policy Extension Act of 1997. This bill will extend by 2 years the life of the California Advisory Council on Indian Policy, which was created by legislation I sponsored in the 102d Congress. The council was created to specifically provide Congress with a report setting forth recommendations for remedial measures to address the special problems facing California Indians and Indian tribes. The problems include the status of California's terminated and unrecognized tribes, economic self-sufficiency, and health and educational needs. The council has fulfilled its task and provided Congress with a comprehensive report and set of recommendations. These recommendations focus on land consolidation, restoration of tribes, provision of health, educational, and social services, and responsibility to urban Indians. Because the council has acquired considerable expertise on these and other issues during its 4-year existence, it seemed to me that their knowledge should not go to waste. My bill would extend the existence of the council for another 2 years so that the council will be able to guide Congress in the implementation of the report's recommendations. My bill directs the council to consult and work with Congress, the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services, the California Indian tribes, and the State in expediting the implementation of the recommendations contained in the council's 1997 report. I want to be clear that the council is to consult with all of the Indian tribes in the State and my bill makes it clear that the council is to provide timely information to the tribes regarding their actions. But I believe that the knowledge and wisdom that the council has gained from its 4-year existence is simply to valuable to cost aside. Thus, I am pleased to introduce this measure so that we can continue to benefit from their experience as we begin the process of reviewing and implementing the recommendations in their report.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, S. 1079 is a bill introduced by Senator Dorgan that allows the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota to take an important step toward future economic development. Congressman Pomeroy of North Dakota has sponsored similar legislation in the House. In an attempt to force Senate action on the Quincy Library Group legislation, the majority has sent S. 1079 to the desk with an unrelated amendment, that with one change is the text of Quincy Library Group bill (H.R. 858) that was reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month. Members may recall that when the House considered H.R. 858 in July, I initially opposed the bill. However, after negotiating with Chairman Young, a number of important changes were made to the bill on the House floor. With those changes I voted for the bill. I recognized at the time that the bill was far from a perfect measure but it was significantly improved. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has made further changes to the bill. Two of the most important changes were to provide roadless area protection to large areas of the three national forests and to provide the pilot project will end the earlier of when the forest plan is amended or 5 years. I am pleased to see the language added on roadless area protection. This change provides a statutory basis for such protection but it by no means is the only protection that can be provided. There is no requirement that the Forest Service undertake activities on lands that were not identified as off-base or deferred. The Forest Service has the authority and I expect them to use it to not enter into lands where it has been brought to their attention that such activities would harm either the land or the resources found on those lands. Likewise, the Senate change on the time limit of the pilot project is an improvement. As I and others had noted, it made no sense to require the Forest Service to continue the pilot project even after the plan amendment process has been completed. This is inconsistent with the normal operation of environmental laws. Let us not forget, the Quincy Library Group legislation is a pilot project. As such, it sets no precedent for further action on other proposals. In fact, it would be irresponsible to act on other such proposals before this pilot project was completed and we and others had a chance to review its strengths and weaknesses. I still have reservations on this proposal but it obvious that the bill has been substantively improved from where it started out. I expect the Forest Service to see that all environmental laws are complied with, as the bill requires. Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose the nongermane amendment that is being offered to S. 1079 but I must question the majority's tactic of using this bill as an attempt to force Senate action of the Quincy Library Group legislation. The only thing this strategy has to offer is that the Senate will have before it two Quincy bills before it rather than one. I regret the S. 1079 is being held hostage. The underlying bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to approve the mineral lease of lands for individual Indians living on the Fort Berthold Reservation when a majority of interest owners have agreed to the lease. Otherwise, approval of the lease would require unanimous consent of all the interest owners. Because many of the ownership of interests individual Indian lands have been divided and subdivided into hundreds of shares over the past century, leasing of these Indian lands for any purpose has posed an insurmountable problem because it is nearly impossible for the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the tribes to identify and track down each individual interest owner, much less get their unanimous consent. Basically, this bill tackles the fractionated heirship problem that plagues many Indian reservations across the country. On the whole it is a good approach and may be considered as one model for national legislation that addresses this problem for all Indian tribes. Nevertheless, I have two concerns about this bill. The first is procedural. No hearings or other kind of legislative record has been built up here in the House of Representatives. This is not the first time nor, I suspend, the last that Indian bills are going to be handled in this fashion. I just want to point this out for the record. Second, I remain concerned about a provision in the bill that allows the Secretary to execute a mineral lease on behalf of an Indian owner if the land is in probate and the heirs or devisees have not been determined or cannot be located. With the extent of fractionated heirship in Indian country, there will certainly be many cases where the heirs have not been determined or cannot be located. In this case, the bill does not impose a requirement that the Secretary make serious effort to determine or locate the heirs. I am concerned that the BIA will simply use this language as an excuse to simply rubber stamp any lease application for lands in probate. I hope that this will not be the result of this bill and strongly urge the administration to adopt regulations that impose a serious duty to make a good faith effort to give notice to, and determine and locate, those heirs and devisees of lands subject to this bill. Furthermore, the administration should also adopt regulations that at least give the probate process a fair but timely chance of working. Having voiced these concerns, I will support passage of this bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to pay tribute to Kenneth Bloomhorst for his contribution to environmental protection in this country. Mr. Bloomhorst has the distinction of having created the symbol that represents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Created over 25 years ago, his work remains the symbol for the Agency that is recognized around the country and in many parts of the world for the protection of the environment and our Nation's health. Mr. Bloomhorst, who was vice president and art director for an Indianapolis advertising agency, MWB, Inc., illustrated the seal and his firm contributed it to the EPA. On October 18, 1971, then President Richard Nixon signed Executive Order No. 11628 to establish a seal for the EPA and provided the following description of Mr. Bloomhorst's creation. ``A flower with a bloom which is symbolic of all the elements of the environment. The bloom is a sphere, the component parts of which represent the blue sky, green earth, blue-green water. A white circle within the sphere denotes either the sun or the moon. All are symbolic of a clean environment and are superimposed on a disc with a white background, circled by the title `UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY' in blue letters.'' Mr. Bloomhorst, in an interview with the Fairborn Daily Herald in November 1971, said, ``The symbol at a quick glance represents a flower, but it means even more when inspected closely. The flower is like the mother earth. If it is not protected, it will wither and die. The purpose of the EPA is to keep the environment clean, alive and beautiful.'' Symbols are important in our society, just as are our actions. Mr. Bloomhorst's seal was created at the dawn of the American environmental movement. Today, a quarter century later, environmental protection remains one of Americans' most important values. Yet too often, this value has been portrayed as in conflict with other values, such as economic growth and job creation even though it has been shown time and again that environmental protection and economic growth can, and I would argue must, go hand in hand to guarantee a sustainable future for ourselves, our children, and the many generations to come. The test for our society as we enter the next century is to preserve the value that Mr. Bloomhorst portrayed in the EPA seal and to integrate this value of environmental protection into the activities of all Americans and into the policies of our Government. Without the work of the EPA and the environmental laws that it has overseen, such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, America would be a far more dangerous and unhealthy place than it is today. Those who have tried to undermine this agency on behalf of shortsighed, narrow interests have learned that the environment remains a perilous political battleground. Mr. Bloomhorst today continues to be an illustrator with an interest in the environment. As environmental protection has been such an important focus in current events, I believed it was important to rise today to congratulate Mr. Bloomhorst for seeing his seal become a permanent fixture in our country's landscape and to thank him for his important contribution to our history.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding to me, from Martinez, and I thank him for his work on this legislation, and I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and, again, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for all of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor and to make it a true bipartisan effort. There have been very intensive negotiations around this legislation. I think those negotiations have been intense because, as the gentleman from New Jersey just said, we believe this is one of the most important subjects that we confront as members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and that is our ability to improve the outcomes for our young children in school to learn to read so that they can read to learn for the rest of their lives. As so many have already said here today, we are not doing a very good job in that effort. I think this legislation starts to turn us around in that. In terms of the emphasis that it places on the professional development of teachers, it is clear that we have got to have competent, capable teachers in that classroom, spending time with those children to help them learn to read. It is clear that we have got to get the parents of these children involved in reading to their children and encouraging their children and rewarding their children for reading competency. It is also very clear that we have got to call upon additional volunteers to come to our schools and to spend time with the children. I notice today in Roll Call magazine some of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate spending time on Capitol Hill. Senator Durbin from Illinois was pictured at Brent School, reading to a young man, trying to encourage that young man to improve his reading proficiency so he could have a successful education. Mr. Speaker, I spent an awful lot of time with young adolescents in my local high schools where I teach a couple of classes for young children and young students in the continuation high school and also in a honors class at another high school. Every Monday morning, we talk about some of these issues. And I cannot tell you the sadness the young people express and how cheated they feel that they cannot read to grade level and how angry they are about social promotions and being told that they are doing fine, they are getting C's, and they will be OK, and now to realize as they are 10th and 11th graders, that they really cannot read. It has got to stop. We have got to make this a determinant of your ability to proceed in education. We have got to bring the resources. This bill does that. It allows us to go out and to contract with tutors, to bring additional emphasis and resources on those children that are having difficulty. Hopefully, schools will get better at identifying those children and the problems they have, and we can start to eliminate the great number of children who are falling behind their reading proficiency at grade level. We will be able to identify those problems and get those children up to grade level so they can have a successful education. Unless we do that, Mr. Speaker, we simply are not going to improve the American education experience for millions of children that we need as competent children, as capable children, and as graduates of an education system that allows them to take their place in American society. I would hope that the House would overwhelmingly pass this bipartisan legislation to improve America's reading education.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and also in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney]. First let me address the legislation. I wanted to commend the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Indiana for all of their work on this legislation. I think that charter schools hold out and in fact are holding out an exciting prospect for American public education, and I think they give us an opportunity, as has already been said here a number of times this afternoon, to experiment with a number of ideas that we think will improve the education of our children. I think it allows for in many instances a much greater investment by teachers in the running of that school. It allows us in many instances to bring people from outside and throughout the community to participate in that education, and I think it puts a lot of the decisionmaking about the utilization of resources where it belongs, at the school site, as those who are working at that site on a day-to-day basis can decide what it is that children who attend that school need and would benefit the most from. So I would hope that this is legislation that would get strong support from the House of Representatives, and, again, I thank the two gentlemen for bringing it to the floor. I would say, however, on this amendment that I still continue to have a problem with the cap, because I think it is an area where we are tweaking the State decisionmaking authority, where we do not need to. Given the hunger in this country for an educational program that works, I think charter schools are going to become magnets for education policy makers at the States as they try to replicate them and reinforce the model and expand them throughout the individual States. But I also think it is very important that the States, as we do tread this, because simply saying you want charter schools or support charter schools doesn't mean we will have successful charter schools. I think we ought to do those things that will ensure that these models are in fact successful, hopefully that they can be replicated across the State and across the country, but we ought to let the State departments of education have some say in the determination of that. I guess they could have some say with the language in the bill, because if they needed to have more charter schools each year than they had the year before, they could say 10, 11, 12, and 13, and they would qualify for this money. If we are going to have 3,000, California has a little over 10 percent of the population, I guess we would have 300 in the next 3 years. I do not know if our State can really ensure the integrity of this system. Tragically, we have seen in a couple of instances, and I do not think this should deter anybody from charter schools, but we have seen a couple of bad ones, and I think the States ought to have a right and the legislatures ought to have a right to stay at that pace. I do not think the educational establishment, if people are going to use that in a pejorative sense, can stand in front of this idea and be successful. I do not think it can happen. I think it is going to grow because these schools are going to grow. I just think that the cap just does not make sense. We ought to respect the rights of the States to make that determination. Some will be too conservative, and some will be too liberal. I will say, however, if the cap is going to be the criterion for money, then States will just decide to put whatever numbers they want in so they can have more charter schools 1 year than after the other. It will have nothing to do with the quality or credibility that you seek in the amendment. So I think it is unnecessary, but I also think it is an improper place for us in terms of determining how the States will manage the growth of charter schools.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think I concur in the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and maybe the subcommittee chairman can help me, but I do not understand what it is about the current system that is not working or not allowing for the number of charter schools that we want or the progression of charter schools that we want. My State, the State of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], has a limit of 100. I think they have looked the other way and breached that already and there are maybe over 110 schools, but the statute is still 100. But I do not understand why we are insisting on some level of growth in charter schools if the States make in their determination that they want to stage it in another fashion. I can appreciate that a concern might be that there are those who do not like charter schools who would get a limitation put on the number of charter schools or the growth rate of charter schools at the State level, and I think that would be wrong. But I do not know that we should be telling the State how fast to grow charter schools. If they can handle 100 or handle 50 or handle 500, it would seem to me that is a legislative determination with their State departments of education about how they want to proceed in this fashion. I think there are two big dangers here. We find something we like and we overreplicate it and we lose the integrity of what we are trying to hold on to. In many States, this is a new program but we are looking for integrity. We are looking for the opposite of what people think they find sometimes in the local schools, in terms of curriculum, accountability, and the kind of people who can teach and so forth. That is why they went to a charter school. But it seems to me if you grow like top seed, what happens around here most times is that these programs start to lose their integrity, they start to look like that which they were there to maybe replace or to renew, and all of a sudden we are back to spending people's money and now we have got GAO reports and IG reports. I do not know why we would not leave it to the States to make this determination and not get into this business of old money and new money when it comes to charter schools, because it sounds to me like most States are now seeing that this is the future.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it has become clear to all that the case that the Republicans have been pursuing against the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] has failed. It has failed for the simple reason that they have been unable to provide us sufficient evidence to suggest that somehow she was improperly elected to her seat in the Congress. And yet in spite of that overwhelming evidence of a lack of evidence to voter fraud affecting her seat, they continue this investigation. They have sent out subpoenas to people, improperly so; they have questioned the citizenship of individuals who have properly voted; they have questioned all sorts of voters, but what they have not been able to do is they have not been able to prove that she has been improperly elected. The time has come for the Republicans to drop this case and to dismiss the charges against the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and let her conduct herself on behalf of the citizens she was elected to represent in Orange County, CA. The time has come to stop this witch hunt against Hispanic voters and to let Loretta Sanchez sit as an equal with the rest of us.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has now agreed to a date for a full and fair and open debate on campaign finance reform next March. The American public wants this done, and I believe the majority of Members of the House want this done. The time has come now for the Republican leadership to agree to set a date for that debate. That debate must be open, it must be fair, it must allow for the consideration of the competing bills for reforming our campaign finance reform system. There is a rule that is at this desk, or a discharge petition to create a rule that would allow that debate on those competing items for reform. The time has come for the Republican leadership to get out of the way, let the Congress have that debate, let the public watch that debate, because they are hungry for campaign finance reform. We have spent a year listening to and discovering scandals on both sides of the aisle on the misuse of campaign money, on the overwhelming onslaught of soft money in our system. The time has come to reform it. Mr. Speaker, do it now. Give us a date before we leave town.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13 as printed in the Record.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as Members are now aware, we have just experienced two very close votes on whether or not the Federal Government ought to continue to subsidize grazing on Federal lands that are owned by the public, and continue that subsidy in a completely arbitrary fashion. The question in the two previous amendments, first of all, was whether or not the Federal land grazers ought to pay at least those prices that are charged for rental of that land and the grazing of that land that the States charged for comparable lands within their borders, and in a very, very narrow margin, apparently the House decided that was not the case. In the second amendment, the decision was whether or not, if we are going to subsidize these people in an arbitrary fashion to the tune of some $30 million a year that this program loses, should we subsidize also some of the largest corporations in this country, and should we also subsidize some the richest people in this country. On a much narrower vote the decision was somehow, unbelievably so, that yes, we could continue to pour taxpayer dollars to the richest corporations and the richest individuals. I do not think that is how we got to a reduced deficit, but somehow we are going to continue it. In this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the question is this for us: Do we think we ought to continue to pour Federal subsidies to those corporations that are foreign-owned, to those corporations that are grazing on Federal lands but are foreign-owned and operated here. Should we continue to subsidize grazing operations that are 11,000 acres in size, 6,000 acres, 4,000 acres owned by the E.M. Remy Co. out of Switzerland, the Zenchiku Livestock Co. of 7,000 acres from Japan, Two Dot Ranch out of France and Switzerland, and it goes on and on. Should we be using taxpayers' dollars to subsidize these foreign operations? Mr. Chairman, if that does not give my colleagues reason to pause as they cast their two previous votes to end these subsidies, we might want to understand that in some instances we are subsidizing foreign mining operations that are mining on their base properties, have gotten Federal allotments, are taking hundreds of millions of dollars off of Federal lands for which they pay no royalties to the taxpayers, and then the taxpayers are giving them additional subsidies for the grazing of the cattle. Mr. Chairman, when will my colleagues stop insulting the American taxpayer with this kind of program? They could not do it, they could not bring it upon themselves to say we ought to just charge what the States apparently are able to charge in a much more efficient fashion. So they could not stop the taxpayers' subsidy there. They could not bring it upon themselves when we just singled out the top 7, 8, 9 percent of the users of this land who are among the largest and richest corporations and individuals in this country. They could not stop it there. Can they stop it here? Mr. Chairman, they are using these taxpayer dollars to subsidize foreign corporations, some of whom are, in fact, double-dippers. They are dipping into the Federal Treasury because they are mining on Federal lands, but they do not provide any royalties for the billions of dollars that they take off in silver and gold, and then they get to dip to graze the cattle, which is incidental to their mining operation. Mr. Chairman, at some point, at some point this body has got to understand that they are insulting the intelligence of the American people if they believe that they accept this or they think this is acceptable, because it is not and that is what we have to do. Mr. Chairman, these foreign firms that I am asking to end the subsidy for are in the top 4 percent of the size of these cattle operations. These are not the ``Mom and Pops'' that some people said that they wanted to save in the last amendment from an increase in cost. This is not the family farmer; these are the big fellows who are owned by foreign corporations, who have decided they can come here and raise cattle with subsidized dollars. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to put an end to that. I think we ought to understand that this is a subsidy to which they are entitled, with no limits under the current law. My amendment would end that subsidy. They would simply have to pay the State rates or the private rates. We are not gouging them. We just ask that they pay what the State charges for comparable lands within their boundaries.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, both of these amendments, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] make an awful lot of sense. Clearly this legislation in the last half-hour has been improved by the amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. But now we are down to the crux of the program, which is whether or not the taxpayers of this country are entitled to have the costs of this program covered by those who benefit from it. The problem we have in the existing program is that, in effect, the benefits or the formula, the new formula offered in this legislation is simply arbitrary. It does not reflect what the real cost of doing business is or what the real potential for profit is or the qualities of the lands, which are related to those across the Federal grazing program. The fact of the matter is, as pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], it appears that the States for comparable lands are able to much better negotiate with the ranchers, with the grazers on the basis of the value of those lands. Those are the people who are competing right alongside of the people who have Federal allotments that have a much lower cost in terms of the AUM for those lands. When the Federal grazer goes to sell their cattle, they do not sell it at a lower price because they had a lower price of production. They all go to the same auction. They all go to the same purchaser, to the slaughterhouse, however the purchaser is decided, and a price is published or bid and they do not ask whether you are a Federal cow, a State cow, or a private sector cow. And therefore, what we see is a subsidy that flows to the Federal cow, the Federal grazer, in this case, as opposed to that which goes to the person farming or grazing on private sector land and/or grazing on State lands that are in the same area, same vicinity and comparable for that production. This has historically been a problem in the West. It certainly happens in my State of California where we have Federal water and we have State water. Federal water or State water will grow tomatoes; one is a Federal tomato and one is a State tomato. But when you go to Hunt Foods or Libby-McNeil, they do not ask if you are a Federal tomato or a State tomato. They say, this is what we are paying per ton of tomatoes. There is, in fact, a subsidy. I think that for the moment, just as we had to finally make a decision that we were going to let the States start collecting royalties on some oil and gas because they were more efficient than the Federal Government, I think here we ought to think about and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] suggests we should be pegging the Federal return to the taxpayer based upon what the States charge because they seem to be much more efficient in getting that return to their taxpayers for this land. Again, the formula that is presented by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] does not take into account the differences in the quality of the land, the land in Nebraska, the land in Colorado or up in the northern corner of California or the land in Arizona. Some cows eat creosote and have to go 40 miles an hour just to stay alive. Other cows are standing around in high clover. And there is no distinction. But there is a distinction when we get to the State leasing of these lands. I think this is a fair, nonprejudicial way to allocate these resources. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] points out, even this will not recover to us the full cost of doing business. But we can work on that. We can continue to work on the efficiencies and the costs of this program by the agencies that are running it. First of all, we have got to stop the hemorrhaging of subsidies that flow out of this program and deprive the taxpayer of that return. This Congress over the last several years, in efforts to balance the budget, has assessed fees on multiple users, even in the granddaddies of all the water projects out in California. We now every year update the cost of doing business. We charge more and more as the cost goes up. No longer do we just pass that on to the taxpayer and those irrigators have to absorb that. That is a decision we made a number of years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, as we decided to try and reduce this Federal deficit. We should be doing the same with respect to the Federal grazing program and, with the inclusion of this amendment, we have a very substantially improved bill beyond those improvements provided by the Stenholm amendment and the recent changes by the chairman of the committee. Without it, without this amendment or the Vento amendment, this is clearly a seriously flawed program with respect to the interest of the national taxpayers.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say again the suggestion that somehow the State grazing fees only apply to superior land is just a misnomer. The fact is, in Arizona, in California, in Colorado, the State lands very often are right next to the Federal lands. They are carved out of the same lands. They were put there in an arbitrary fashion. And the quality is very much the same. But in Arizona are we going to pay $2.18, and under this formula we are going to pay $1.55? In California, we are going to pay $500 a year minimum. Under this we do not know what we are going to pay. In Colorado, we pay $6.50 to $7.17. And under this we pay $1.55. The point is this: It is sort of like new math. Joe and Moe are both ranchers. Joe farms on Federal land, and Moe farms on State land. Joe and Moe send their cows to market. They get the same price. Joe on Federal land gets more money back than Moe on State land. What is that called? That is called a subsidy. We have to end it right now.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the previous speaker. This amendment is not about whether or not people or corporations get to come to the United States to work their trades, which sounds very noble. This is an amendment about whether or not those corporations, when they come to America to work their trade, ought to continue to receive a Federal subsidy. It is just that simple. This is about whether or not on the Federal lands that are owned by all of the people of the United States in which people lease those lands for the purposes of engaging in grazing, whether or not those Federal, those foreign corporations ought to pay their way. This is simply about whether they should pay their way. The notion that somehow this is not done because of the Taylor Grazing Act, the fact of the matter is, the IG's report points out that, specifically with respect to the Japanese corporation, that it is a Japanese-owned company that is operated in Montana. So this is being done. They ought to just pay their way. That is all we are asking. Just pay what grazers pay the State of California, the State of Colorado, the State of Idaho for the use of those lands and end the Federal subsidies to those people who are among the very largest of the grazers within this program. This is not about being against people who come here and work hard. It is about large corporations that have their own wherewithal coming here and being entitled to a Federal subsidy. That is what has got to stop. There is no showing, there is no showing that these corporations need this subsidy in terms of viability. In Idaho, we would just say that this foreign corporation should pay $4.88 instead of $1.55. We would say that in Montana they should pay $4.05 instead of $1.55. That is the purpose of this amendment. I think clearly the American people understand it. I hope that their representatives in Congress understand it. This is just one subsidy too far for the American public. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and profound sadness at the sudden passing of our friend and colleague, Walter Capps. I send my most sincere condolences to Walter's family and I wish to let them know that he will be missed and fondly remembered. Like many of us here, I came to know Walter when he decided to run for office in the 1994 elections. Even before meeting him during the campaign, word traveled from California to Washington that a respected professor and an exciting man wanted to represent the people of Santa Barbara in Congress. We were told that he was smart, compassionate, and would fight hard for his beliefs and his community. Advance praise for Walter Capps was not undeserved. My only regret was that we did not have more time to work together and to become better friends. Some of my most recent memories of Walter include standing together on the steps of the Capitol one sunny day this month demanding a vote on campaign finance reform. And, one day while walking across the street to vote on another matter, Walter and I discussed the brewing controversy over the future of the ranch in Santa Barbara owned by the Reagans. Walter was well versed in matters both local and national and I believe he would have been one of our great Members of Congress had he only had the chance. Walter, I will miss you. We will all miss you. I am proud to have known you and to have served with you and I will do my part to see that your dreams for our country are realized.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Chairman, when Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, and then amended it in 1987, we made certain agreements among ourselves, the utility companies and the American people. One, we decided that the federal government would assume the responsibility for permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. Two, we would limit our consideration of possible locations for such permanent disposal to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Three, the nuclear utilities would pay a fee to the US government to run the program and fund the construction of the permanent facility. And, four, the utility companies would keep their nuclear waste until we knew with certainty that the Yucca Mountain repository would be built. The bill before us today, H.R. 1270, fundamentally changes that covenant. On October 8, the Resources Committee without one public hearing, reported unfavorably this extensive and complicated bill, H.R. 1270. Today, we are considering a bill that will overturn the decision we made to focus on construction of a safe, permanent facility and instead mandate the immediate construction of a temporary storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In so doing, the bill will prejudice the ongoing viability studies, and make it more difficult for us to learn whether Yucca Mountain is the right place to permanently store high level nuclear waste. Additionally, no one has done any scientific studies to determine whether the site specified in HR 1270 is safe for interim storage of high level nuclear waste. The bill will preempt all federal and state laws that the Secretary of Energy deems to be inconsistent, or that present an obstacle, to implementation of this new law. During the 1980's, Congress built a strong national policy on nuclear waste. We decided that the federal government would take responsibility for the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. We decided to find the appropriate location for that disposal and to build the permanent facility before moving tens of thousands of high level nuclear waste now located at nuclear reactors across the country to the permanent disposal site. High level nuclear waste can be moved safely; but, there is no reason to move it more than is necessary. Yes, there have been problems with the Department of Energy's implementation of this plan. But, they appear to be on the right track now. The science we need to make an informed and objective decision is nearly complete. HR 1270 would prejudice the determination on whether Yucca Mountain can and should contain the permanent repository for the nation's high level nuclear waste by creating a de facto repository at the Nevada Test Site. HR 1270 affirmatively preempts the National Environmental Policy Act. It legislates the selection and construction of an interim storage facility on public lands without any scientific or environmental analysis to support the premise. Current law prohibits the construction of an interim storage facility in Nevada, and limits the size of any other temporary facility to 10,000 tons of waste. HR 1270 mandates that DOE build the interim facility in Nevada and allows up to 40,000 tons of high level nuclear waste to be immediately stored there--with no environmental compliance. President Clinton will veto this bill if it reaches his desk. Senator Harry Reid and his Nevada colleagues are unanimously opposed to this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1270.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the conference report because, as has been the case with past appropriations bills, this report is riddled with indefensible and unsound and undebated provisions that represent a direct assault on the environment and the resources of this country. Mr. Speaker, I want to concur in the statements of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, that the negotiations on behalf of the White House have been completely bungled and mishandled and the result is a bill that is very, very damaging to America's environment. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the work that has been done on the arts, and the arts has become the compelling reason to vote for this legislation. But the arts should not be allowed to destroy the environment in that same legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a piece of legislation that is terribly detrimental to the environment. It completely destroys the $700 million in ``priority Federal land acquisitions'' because of the conditions placed on those acquisitions. The report inappropriately delays these important acquisitions, even though the Land and Water Conservation Fund already provides the ample authority for these acquisitions. Moreover, the use of any of the remaining funds of the $700 million can easily be blocked by the actions of a small number of Members. I also object to the outright political payoffs included in this bill to benefit local Members of Congress in the areas of the acquisition. Humboldt County, where the headwaters of the beautiful ancient rain forest is located, is given $10 million even though there is no concrete evidence that this amount had any relationship to any projected economic losses or that this money will be used to compensate any injury in timbering as a result of the acquisition of these lands. But even more egregious is in the case of Montana, where $12 million is earmarked for highway funds as the result of the acquisition of the New World Mine and then another $10 million is promised to that State. But understand this, that if the Governor does not act on that $10 million and does not accept it, he is then offered some coal deposits that may have a value to the taxpayers of this country of $226 million in royalties and bonus bids. So if the Governor sits on his hands, the taxpayers lose $220 million. No hearings, no discussions. That is what is going on in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have also embarked on a new approach here that we now have Federal acquisitions that are expensive enough, of major environmental assets in this country, that now we are going to start compensating people for imagined loss even though the track record is in most instances where we acquire lands for national parks and monuments and wilderness areas, the fact is that the local economy is dramatically stimulated because visitors from throughout America and throughout the world come there to visit these newly designated sites. As we see in the case of Death Valley and the parks and monuments in California, in southern Utah, the economy is springing forth because of that. But now we are going to compensate these economies with a gift of tens of millions of dollars because we imagine that they might suffer some losses. Mr. Speaker, I am also terribly disturbed about what this does in terms of the timber programs and the timber management of our national forests and lands. We had very close votes in this House on stopping the construction of new timber roads, and yet what we see when they went to the conference committee, they just disregarded the votes in this House and now we have gone beyond the President's budget. The tragedy is that we will see more destruction of more lands in the Nation's timberlands. The administration had proposed eliminating the road credits, but in fact we did not do that in this legislation. We headed in the opposite direction. This report, as pointed out by the gentleman from Oregon, makes it easier to export logs off of Federal lands, as the Inspector General report tells this Congress. But, again, this step was taken with no hearings, no public review, no discussion about the ramifications of this. This report also obstructs the efforts for ecosystem planning in the Columbia River Basin. It interferes with the implementation of the grizzly bear program in Idaho under the Endangered Species Act, and it overturns court injunctions helping grazers in the Southwest. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with this legislation, that once they got it out of the House, once they got it out of the House where it was a fairly decent bill with respect to the environment, the conference committee went crazy and the administration just badly handled these negotiations. The result is that we now have once again the Interior Appropriations bill with antienvironmental riders on it, the same kind of riders that were added 2 years ago when the Republican majority shut down the Government over this legislation. We now see this legislation with the same kind of riders and we cannot get an answer out of the President of the United States of whether or not he will sign the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill should be rejected. The rule should be voted down. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Does the Interior Appropriations Bill Give Away $10 Million of Federal Coal? No. It gives away far more than that. The bill requires the Secretary of Interior to give away either $10 million worth of federal coal agreed to by the Governor of Montana and the Secretary, or the Otter Creek tracts. If the Governor does not agree to take $10 million worth of coal approved by the Secretary, the Secretary must give the Governor the Otter Creek tracts--which are worth far more than $10 million. The Otter Creek tracts cover 10\1/2\ square miles and include reserves of 533 million tons of coal. Similar coal sells for $8-9 a ton at the mine mouth. The bonus bids alone on such tracts average roughly 4 cents per ton--or $21 million. But the real value lies in the 12\1/2\% royalty the federal government would collect on the value of the coal mined. The value of the coal is $8/ton 533 million tons, or $4.26 billion, of which the federal government would collect 12\1/2\%, or 532 million dollars. Under present law, 50% of that would be sent to the state government. This coal would have returned $266 million to the Treasury. This is what the Interior appropriations bill conveys to the State of Montana for no consideration. ISN'T THIS AN ACCEPTABLE PRICE TO PAY TO ACHIEVE THE BUY OUT OF THE NEW

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last Friday to speak at the International Freshwater Symposium sponsored by Green Cross International and Global Green USA in Los Angeles. The meeting, which was chaired by Green Cross President Mikhail Gorbachev, the former president of the Soviet Union, was attended by many of the leading water policy scholars, advocates, and administrators in California. I would like to share my remarks at the conference with my colleagues. In addition, I know that all Members of the House will want to join me in paying tribute to those who received awards from Global Green USA for their outstanding leadership in environmental advocacy. The Founder's Award was given to the president emeritus and founder of Global Green USA, Diane Meyer Simon. The Entertainment Industry Environmental Leadership Award was given to actor Pierce Brosnan for his work on dolphin protection and other issues. James Quinn, the president and CEO of Collins Pine Co., one of the leading U.S. companies practicing sustained yield forest management. The Individual Environmental Leadership Award went to David Brower, the legendary founder of Friends of the Earth and Earth Island Institute, a great leader in environmental causes in California and nationwide for decades. And the International Environmental Leadership Award was given to the National Geographic for its outstanding educational and scientific work: International Freshwater Symposium President Gorbachev, fellow panelists, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to participate in this program today. Much of the world has struck a Faustian bargain over the past century; develop natural resources to promote economic growth with little consideration for long term environmental damage or remediation. Nowhere has this trade-off been more dramatic, or more cataclysmic, than in the case of water development in the American West. In California, as in the Aral Sea, or the forests of Indonesia, or the polluted rivers of Eastern Europe, we are paying a huge environmental price for short-term economic growth. Correcting those past errors will not be cheap or without political risk. Because of our rapid economic development, we in the United States committed serious resource management blunders earlier than many other nations. But we also have been among the first to recognize the errors of the past and to develop, if haltingly, innovative solutions. Western water policy provides a textbook example. The great dams, reservoirs and waterways planned over the last century were supposed to reconfigure Nature for 500 years. Now, in the Pacific Northwest, in Utah, Arizona, North Dakota and California, we are confronting the urgent need to redefine the mission of these projects. The goal of the great water planners in arid California was to make the deserts bloom and to permit cities to flourish. The decisions to build the great dams and canals were made by farsighted, powerful and wealthy interests who spent far more time asking ``How'' than ``Should we?'' We built dams when destruction of wetlands and fisheries was ignored; we became addicted to subsidies in an era when long-term deficits and inflation were not considered; we allowed irrigation of low- quality lands without adequate drainage; we allowed urban growth that within a generation will push the population of our water-short state to nearly that of France and Britain. We created, in short, a population, an economy and a political system that thirsted for water, and that has created a host of economic and environmental problems. On the cusp of the 21st Century, as we were compelled to modernize a water policy conceived in the twilight of the 19th, many doubted that the political system could exercise the bold leadership that is essential to alter destructive, costly habits. And yet, five years ago, we did begin a unique experiment to conform water policy to the environmental, political and economic standards of our own time. Interestingly, these changes were not initiated by local officials in California, but rather were imposed by the national government which recognized that reform was urgent. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act included, for the first time, environmental restoration and fish and wildlife mitigation as fundamental purposes of a major federal water project. This law represents something rather remarkable, even for those who are utterly disinterested in water policy. The CVPIA is fundamentally a mandate to reconfigure our most crucial resource in a way that preserves the vitality of the economy, and then does more. Unlike earlier periods, we are not basing policy solely on what engineering, money and political muscle can achieve. Now, we must pay attention to what science and ethics tell us is necessary to pass a healthy, diverse and prosperous California on to future generations. Policy can no longer only benefit those who arrived first and struck their best bargains. Today, fishermen and hunters, Native Americans, fish and wildlife, the environment itself, must be included. The CVPIA law established the right of all of these parties to a seat at an expanded table and to participate fully in making the fundamental decisions about how we remedy the severe mistakes of the past and plan for more equitable sharing of our resources in the future. Securing such change is difficult enough within a single, heterogeneous state like California. Adding the overlay of clashes between cultures, nations and religions, make solutions seem impossible unless great tenacity is displayed by political and other leaders. And yet, we in California have begun to make great progress, in no small part because all parties have begun to recognize the inevitability of change; to understand that it is cheaper, better science and smarter business to help create a new framework than to be the last defender of the old order. I am encouraged that the progress we are making through the CALFED process and CVPIA implementation, however halting and difficult it is at times, represents the only course for California. And it can serve as a successful model for those in the Middle East, in South America, and elsewhere where water politics threatens both political stability and environmental quality. Lastly, Mr. President, may I say that it is an honor to participate in this meeting with you. Your willingness to venture great thoughts and take enormous risks--both political and personal--stand as one of the great legacies of our century, and I am tremendously gratified that you are lending your distinguished efforts to resolving the problems of the environment around this world.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it does not allow for the consideration of campaign finance reform on the House floor. I ask my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that the Committee on Rules can make in order the consideration of a debate on campaign finance reform. Madam Speaker, I do not oppose this bill and would not otherwise oppose this rule. But I do not believe that we should move forward with other legislation without a commitment on campaign finance reform by this House. My colleagues and members of the public who have been watching the House floor in the past month or two by now are familiar with the problem. The Republican leadership in this House, Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Armey, refuse to allow us to debate and to vote on campaign finance reform legislation. Apparently, they like the system the way they have it and they refuse to allow us to consider bills to reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns. Because of their refusal to allow debate on campaign finance reform, we are forced to take extraordinary measures. We are forced to do what we are doing today, to debate campaign finance reform on a rule dealing with the Coast Guard. But the nature of campaign finance reform is such that we must act. If we do nothing, simply let the current system continue. And we know that that system is repugnant to the American people, and, in fact, threatens the public interest and our Democratic institutions. And with each passing day that the Republican leadership blocks reform, the influence of money over legislation, over elections, over what committee Members sit on or are allowed to serve on, every decision made in Washington grows worse and worse. Money, politics, and influence becomes tighter and tightly controlled. This week, for example, it is reported that the Senate Republican leaders gathered to discuss their legislative agenda for 1998. A normal meeting. One would expect them to plan ahead. It was reported that one of the key issues for the Senate Republican leaders would be whether or not to design a legislative agenda that would stand a chance of winning approval by the President or whether to use next year to raise issues that would galvanize the core Republican constituencies, even if they stood no chance of approval. Madam Speaker, foremost in the minds of that group was to use this legislative agenda for the purpose of generating money for the Republican Party. Now, that is a little bit different. Now we are not just talking about issues; we are talking about whether or not the agenda can be used to raise money, as if to erase any question over the influence that fundraising is to have on setting the agenda. The meeting reportedly was held at the Republican fundraising offices here in Washington. Here is what was reported by Congressional Quarterly Monday morning. Quote, ``A prime topic of discussion is whether to devote the early months of 1998 to legislative priorities that have no chance of winning President Clinton's signature, but would energize the GOP's conservative base as the primary season begins and Senate incumbents try to beef up their bankrolls for the fall.'' They try to beef up their bankrolls? We are going to use the Senate floor and the Senate agenda and the time of the Senate and the House and the people's Congress, to beef up the bankrolls of Republican Members of the Senate? That is why the Senate majority leader, that is why Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, went there. They went there to decide how to put together an agenda that would allow the Republican Senators to raise money? That is what the House of Representatives and the Senate has come to? We are not talking about doing the people's business; we are talking about doing the business of people who give money in large chunks to the Republican Party? Madam Speaker, that is why we need campaign finance reform. That is why we are having to debate this issue on a bill dealing with the Coast Guard, because the Republican leadership in either House will not allow this debate to take place. I find it rather interesting that the same people who were in the meeting talking about setting the agenda to raise campaign money for Republican Senators were the same Senators who engineered the defeat of the McCain-Feingold bill, a bipartisan bill to reform this system. These same leaders in the Senate engineered the defeat of that legislation over the last 2 weeks. Madam Speaker, we are here to tell our colleagues that campaign finance reform is not dead either in the House or in the Senate. We are going to continue to pursue the Republican majority in the House and in the Senate to give us a vote, to give us the debate on this issue. If necessary, we will resort to a discharge petition. We will have to force them. We will have to get a bipartisan coalition in this House, 218 signatures to force this leadership to give us a debate. What we are asking for is a debate and a vote on campaign finance reform. That is what the House of Representatives is supposed to be about. That is what the Congress is supposed to be about. It is about the people's House. The people have spoken now in opinion poll after opinion poll. They are disgusted. They are disgusted with the way that elections are financed in this country. They are disgusted with the fact that now soft money means access. It not only means access to the White House; it means access to committee chairmen who are making multibillion dollar decisions about telecommunications, about energy deregulation, about clear air, about global warming. It is all about access. And if a contributor can write a $100,000 check, they can get it and the rest of the American public cannot. Madam Speaker, that is why we are forced to debate this, but we are not going to let the people who engineer on one day the death of campaign finance reform and then run downtown to the Republican headquarters and talk about using the people's legislative body as a fundraising tool. We thought it was bad enough the other day when the Republicans sent out a letter and said for $10,000 a contributor could have lunch, breakfast, or dinner with the 10 most important Senators who are interested in meeting for $10,000. It is more than about ham and eggs. It is about the legislative agenda. Now they have gone from sending out letters to designing the legislative agenda for the purposes of fundraising. Madam Speaker, I thought that if making a phone call is a problem, what about designing an entire agenda and using the Senate of the United States for the purposes of raising money and doing it with forethought? That is why we need campaign finance reform.