George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this bill and the committee's work. I rise in support of H.R. 2203, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. This conference report provides funds for critical flood control and navigation projects in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay area of California. Also included is $1.5 million to begin construction of fish screens for the Contra Costa Water District's intake at Rock Slough. The screens are needed to reduce the number of fish drawn into the system's pumping and storage facilities. Securing the funding is critical not only as part of fishery protection efforts but also to ensure that the district's Los Vaqueros Reservoir will be completed on schedule. I appreciate the committee's continued support for these projects. I am particularly pleased that the conference report provides $85 million to fund the initial share of Federal participation in the bay- delta programs authorized last fall in the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act. Funding the bay-delta programs will allow us to begin a comprehensive effort to restore the many components of this huge area that have been damaged by human activity. The bill also contains a prohibition on taking steps to build the San Luis drain, a huge canal that would convey contaminated agricultural waste water up to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where it would be discharged. I firmly believe that this drain should not be built, as it would allow the export of toxic pollution to the delta. In addition, the bill contains $100,000 to begin studying the removal of underwater rock formations near the mouth of San Francisco Bay that threaten oil tankers and other deep-draft vessels. This funding will be used to assess the benefits of oil spill avoidance and improved navigation relative to the cost of the project. I thank the conferees for their hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2203.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think the picture reminds me that most of us in politics are well aware that the basic currency of politics is your word. You give your word to your constituents. You give your word to your colleague. You give your word to the voters. The Speaker here and the President gave their word that they would pursue campaign finance reform. Yet, the Speaker refuses to test a date for campaign finance reform, to make it part of the agenda for the House of Representatives, and we are getting very close to the end of this session. The word, the promise that he made over 2 years ago, should be kept with the American people. It should be kept with the Members of this House. That is what our efforts have been trying to do, is to make sure that in fact campaign finance reform, and I appreciate the gentleman's involvement in helping us, becomes a fact; that we get a chance to debate it in a full and open and fair manner, and to live up to the promise that the gentleman reminds us the Speaker made over 2 years ago. I thank the gentleman for taking the well on behalf of campaign finance reform.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Because the Speaker is determined that it will not be on the schedule, that it will not be on the agenda of this House. That is what we are trying to change with many of these procedural votes, to call the attention to the public that we are being gagged in the House of Representatives from talking about this problem.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making this point. Many have tried to say that somehow those of us who are asking that the House debate and pass campaign finance reform are somehow doing it to change the subject because the President and the administration have their own problems with how the money was raised and given to them in the last election. As the gentleman points out, when the Democrats were in control of this House, in three successive efforts they made to pass and did, in fact, pass campaign finance reform, it was vetoed by the President, it was filibustered in the Senate. The fact of the matter is, knowing even then that this was a system that was headed into a meltdown, we tried to take some efforts to get comprehensive finance reforms and they were thwarted by the other party. But now it is even worse. We just heard Members from the other side say that they want to make this effort, and we had a press conference, a bipartisan press conference, supporting bipartisan legislation. We cannot even debate that legislation on the floor of the House, the so-called people's House, because the Republican leadership will not let us. Yet we have numerous Members from the other side of the aisle who have worked many years on this problem. They cannot even be heard.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. This is where the debate of our constituents is supposed to take place by those who have been elected by them. But we cannot have a debate, apparently, in the people's House on campaign finance reform, and yet it is campaign contributions and soft money contributions to campaigns that is distorting the decisions that are being made in this House. It is campaign contributions that allow a $50 billion tax break to be given to the tobacco companies in the middle of the night, with no vote, no discussion, and no debate. In the other body, in the U.S. Senate, they are starting the debate on campaign finance reform. But here, because of Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Armey, we are told we cannot debate that in the people's House. We need to have that debate. We need to free the people's House from the influence of soft money and special interest contributions that are corrupting the legislative process and are corrupting the democratic process in this country. No longer can we have the decisions being made based upon who gave you a contribution.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the pictures that have been painted in the hearings in the Senate and in the disclosures by national news media about what took place in the last campaign is not a pretty picture for the American people. In fact, I am sure it is quite painful when they see that the last campaign of what we call soft money, that is money that essentially is not regulated by Federal campaign laws, was made in contributions to both parties, both major parties in this country, in huge amounts by individuals, and the story that unfolds is that that soft money was all about access. It was all about access to the White House; it was all about access to the Republican committee chairmen in the House, and the Republican committee chairmen in the Senate, and the leadership in the House and in the Senate. Letters went out and told people, if they gave $10,000, they could have lunch with chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, or the Committee on Labor, or the Committee on Ways and Means, or in the Senate one could have lunch or dinner or a private meeting, and for $25,000 one could be in on strategy sessions. The average American could not even dream of being in on one of those sessions. But that soft money then started to dictate, as we saw in the previous session, even before this election, lobbyists and powerful people sitting in the offices of the Republican leadership drafting legislation to weaken the Clean Air Act, to weaken the Clean Water Act, to weaken the health safety acts that protect our families and children against unhealthy food, to weaken the meat inspection act after people have died because of bad meat in the marketplace. But the lobbyists, they had access, because they gave $10,000, they gave $100,000. And the crescendo really came in campaign finance reform, or really about bad campaign practices, the crescendo came just about 1 month ago or 2 months ago when we did the Balanced Budget Tax Relief Act. Members in this House voted on an act believing they were balancing the budget and providing tax relief. However, later we found out that the interests, the tobacco interests that gave the most money to the Republican Party, to the leadership, the individual Members of the Republican leadership, they were able to get a meeting that no other American could get. They were able to get a meeting where in the middle of the night, with no vote, no hearing, no discussion, and apparently, if we listen to the people, no authors, but an amendment got into that bill that provided $50-, 5-0, $50 billion in tax breaks for the tobacco companies that have been killing our citizens and lying about it for 50 years. How did they do it? They did it because they gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to members of the leadership, to the Republican Party, to the Republican conventions, and the payoff day was the day that bill was passed. Now, fortunately, because of Senator Durbin over on the other side and Senator Collins and the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Lowey, here, when they made us vote in the light of the day, it went away, because we shined democracy, we shined light, we shined the public perception. The press could see what was going on, and nobody would claim that amendment. But a few hundred thousand dollars got the amendment into the bill. That is why we have been having procedural votes in this House, because we have to end this system that allows the people to sit in the galleries, but the special interests to sit in the office of the Speaker and the majority whip and design legislation; that allows the people to stand outside and petition us on the steps, but allows the special interests to sit down and have dinner and talk about how they can redesign the communications business and who gets access to this billion-dollar giveaway and that billion-dollar giveaway, and the networks will not be charged for using the public airways. That is what has to stop. That is what this week was about. Finally, finally, after this week, we get some utterances from the other side that maybe they will allow a debate on campaign finance reform. They will not tell us when, they will not tell us how, and they are not even sure they will do it. We deserve better, and the American people deserve better. The U.S. Senate today has started debate on campaign finance reform, and yet in the House we cannot even discuss it. We cannot even discuss it because of huge contributions to the Republican leadership.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I do so to----

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the reason I reserve the right to object hopefully is to respond to not only the scheduling change here but also the comments by the majority leader.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order?

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, on the point of order, since the point of order seems intent upon cutting off the rights of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], I use a reservation of objection to rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as the author of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 [CVPIA] that modernized the purposes and operations of one of the largest water projects in the United States, I was delighted to read recently that some of those who have most vociferously opposed passage and implementation of that landmark law are coming around to the side of reform. The objective of the law was to bring the Central Valley project into the modern age--when the massive subsidies, unlimited contracts, and indifference to environmental and fishery destruction that long characterized the CVP's operations were rejected in favor of managing the project in a more financially and environmentally responsible manner. One of the key devices in that law is the use of tiered pricing in new water contracts to encourage the most efficient use of water resources. In the past, the CVP has provided millions of acre feet of water to irrigators at enormously subsidized prices--often to grow marginal or surplus crops on low-quality, high-polluting land. Indeed, some irrigators continue to launch litigative and legislative efforts to overturn the law so they can continue to enjoy these multibillion dollar subsidies at the expense of the taxpayers. Tiered pricing charges users progressively higher--while still subsidized--prices based on the amount of water they use in order to encourage efficient use and minimize runoff that can contaminate groundwater, rivers, and streams. Irrigators denounced tiered pricing as unfair and predicted it would not work. How gratifying it is then, to read the ``Summary of Grassland Basin Drainers' Drainage Reduction Activities'' for August 28, 1997, in which we learn that, within their own districts, many of these very same farmers have turned to tiered pricing--to achieve the same objectives as the CVPIA. Most water districts in the drainage area have implemented tiered water pricing to encourage farmers to manage water deliveries carefully and to reduce drainage water volume and selenium load. Several districts have targeted drain water reduction, specifically, by implementing a separate tiered pricing structure for preirrigation. The report then details some of the specific programs in the San Joaquin Valley drainage area which receives substantial CVP deliveries out of the Delta, and concludes as follows: ``All of these programs have encouraged farmers to select efficient water management practices that reduce surface and subsurface drain water in the 1997 crop year.'' I am personally gratified, Mr. Speaker, to learn that the irrigators themselves have come to accept the beneficial value of tiered pricing, and I look forward to their joining us in our ongoing efforts to implement other provisions of the CVPIA.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives must be allowed to debate and vote on substantive bipartisan campaign finance reform. The question is, will the Republican leadership allow this to happen? The press is reporting today that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], majority leader, has said that there will be consideration sometime this year. I am encouraged by these comments. The time has come now for the majority leader and the minority leader to sit down and work out the terms of these debates, just as the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate sat down and discussed how debate will be conducted later this year. When that is done, the House can go back to business as usual and the country can receive the debate that it is entitled to. I encourage the majority leader to sit down with the minority leader and work out the terms of a bipartisan debate and legislation on campaign finance reform.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Every time the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative commits this Nation to the provisions of an international trade agreement, they potentially bind American citizens to changes in dozens of Federal, State, or local laws. What makes matters worse is that, if the agreement has been negotiated under fast- track authority, the elected representatives of those people have no opportunity to amend the legislation implementing the agreement. Let me give you some examples of why this amendment is so important. In 1991, the fishing industry in Mexico decided it did not approve of the United States law protecting the thousands of dolphins slaughtered each year in the Pacific tuna fishery. Mexico challenged that law under the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and a panel of unselected trade bureaucrats, meeting behind closed doors in Geneva, decided our popular law, enacted by an open democratic process, was a barrier to free trade. They told us to change it--and this year, amid massive controversy and in spite of tremendous opposition from the American people, we did. Mexico and the GATT got their way, and more dolphins will die this year as a result. In 1993, right after the administration assured us that our entry into the newly created World Trade Organization would not require any weakening of United States environmental protection laws, Venezuela challenged EPA regulations issued under the Clean Air Act, claiming that the regulations discriminated against foreign refiners. Even though Venezuela's gasoline produces more smog-emitting chemicals than American refiners are permitted to sell, in 1996 the WTO ordered the United States to change its regulations because they were a barrier to free trade, and EPA is now rewriting the regulations. Today, the United States is fighting similar challenges behind closed doors in Geneva. Several Asian countries have challenged a provision of our Endangered Species Act that protects sea turtles. On the human rights front, the United States is currently defending a Massachusetts law prohibiting companies that do business with the State government from also doing business with the oppressive regime in Burma. Clearly, even State laws are subject to challenge by other nations under WTO rules. Now let me point to the latest, and perhaps most egregious, example of how our laws can be held hostage by foreign-owned corporations. Included in the fast-track request sent to Congress last week by the President is a little-known item called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The MAI has been under negotiation by the developed nations of the world for the past 2 years, but these negotiations have been kept so secret that no one could confirm their existence until this past April. According to the director of the World Trade Organization, the MAI is ``the constitution of a single global economy.'' Here in my hand is a list of the State laws that could be challenged under the MAI as inconsistent with the agreement. They range from California laws promoting investment in facilities for processing recycled materials to Alaska laws limiting permits for mineral extraction on public lands. Federal statutes affected would include laws providing special incentives for minority-owned businesses or for companies that employ local workers. Trade agreements are no longer about lowering tariffs or eliminating quotas. They cover everything from the contents of the milk our children drink to the way we manage our fisheries. It's time to update the way we approve of these agreements as well. The democratically elected members of the Congress and State legislatures have a right to know whether the trade agreements that this or any other administration commits us to have an impact on our laws, and for that very important reason I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.