George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, our Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, is fond of numbers. Here are new numbers on campaign finance reform. Zero. Never has the Republican majority brought campaign finance reforms to the floor of the House for a vote. Two. Twice in this past decade Democrats passed campaign finance reforms, only to see them vetoed by a Republican president. Twenty-eight. It has been 28 months since Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton shook hands promising campaign finance reform. Two hundred sixty-five. In the 1996 election cycle, both parties raised $265 million in soft money. Finally, 4:30. At 4:30 this afternoon, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party will fly in private planes to New York to raise money for the party, insisting that we have no time for campaign finance reform.

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 have a preferential motion at the desk.

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. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] for an incredibly moving statement, and thank him for his support of campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, people watching the House of Representatives today should be clear about what has happened here. As we speak right now, leaders of the Republican Party and members of the Republican Party are flying to New York City in private jets to attend a fund-raising dinner. It is not even 5 o'clock, and yet we have stopped doing the legislative business for this day. The fact is that raising money is more important to the Republican Party than finishing the work that we have before us. We are not finishing a number of important bills to make sure that government does not close at the end of this month, as we recall it closed twice in 1995 and 1996. The fact is that we have one very important piece of legislation that is not yet resolved, but which we have been repeatedly told there is just not enough time to consider. I am talking about campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have been demanding for this entire year that Speaker Gingrich schedule time on the House floor for a measure that would reform our corrupt campaign finance laws and ban soft money. The term ``soft money'' refers to large contributions to political parties that are not supposed to help elect candidates, but really do. Some soft money has some very real impact. It comes in a variety of sizes, $25,000, $50,000, $250,000, and most recently even $1 million from a single individual or organization. We want to ban soft money because we believe it has distorted our democracy. We believe that public policy has become for sale to the highest bidder, and we believe that is wrong. But the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Newt Gingrich] thinks it is more important to go to New York for a fund- raiser than to stay in Congress and work on legislation that will make our election laws more secure and protected from the influence of special interest money. Apparently there is time to go to New York to raise money for the Republican Party, but there is no time to stay here and work to perfect our democracy, and work to reduce the influence of special interest money, and ban soft money. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by this decision. I am deeply troubled by it, and I can imagine many Americans are troubled as well. The Speaker once said, we should clean this system up. In fact, over 2 years ago, many Members will remember, he shook hands with President Clinton in New Hampshire over a pledge to reform campaign finance laws, a pledge to the American people. Do Members know what reforms have been implemented in that time? None. The Speaker has done nothing in 28 months to clean up our campaign finance laws, but he has continued to raise record amounts of money, and continues to believe that what American democracy needs is more money in politics, not less. The fact is, money has simply overwhelmed our democracy. Too many decisions today in Congress are made based upon whether or not contributions were received with regard to a particular issue. It is not just whether issues are brought to the floor for a vote, it is also the issues that are not brought to the floor for a vote. Health care reform, labor protections, minimum wage increases, these issues are hard to raise in Congress, in part because of the narrow interests that have fed the political machine with cold, hard cash. Money in politics affects everything lawmakers do in Washington, even our health and our safety. For example, the meat institute and the grocery manufacturers reportedly spent over $300,000 in the 1996 elections, and today they are actively lobbying against new proposed meat inspection standards in the wake of the E. coli concerns that all Americans share. Then there is the infamous $50 billion tax break for the tobacco industry in the recent balanced budget and tax agreement approved by Speaker Gingrich and Trent Lott, $50 billion of taxpayers' money given away in the middle of the night. Do Members think it is a coincidence that the tobacco companies are among the largest contributors to political parties and Members of Congress? I do not. Despite the overwhelming evidence that this system needs to be changed, the leadership in Congress refuses to allow us to have a vote on a bill to reform our campaign finance reform laws. If we are serious about reform, there is still time to ban soft money in the upcoming 1998 elections. That is what I believe we should do, but we cannot get a vote on the House floor to do that. Again, we cannot do it because they say there is no time. Clearly there is time, because as we see, most Republicans have left this Chamber today early to go to New York for a fund-raiser. Mr. Speaker, I will continue and my colleagues will continue to call on Speaker Gingrich to schedule a vote this month on a ban on soft money, and to restore the will of the people to the House of the people. Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to this vote, and the American people are entitled to this vote.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment. I do so and I find it rather interesting that we have so many Members coming out onto the floor and saying that what we have got to do is abide by local control and local decisions, and yet this amendment would not allow some 15 major cities in this country and a number of States that have made the decision that they want to use the NAEP for the purposes described in the President's program, this amendment would prohibit them from doing that. States of Alaska; Kentucky; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; North Carolina; West Virginia; not exactly the hotbeds of a Federal takeover of education; Atlanta, Georgia; Broward County, FL; El Paso, TX; Fresno, CA; Long Beach, CA; Omaha; New York City; Philadelphia; San Antonio would like to use NAEP. They believe in this product. They would like to use it for this purpose, but this amendment will not allow them to do that. So, it is not quite the level of local control that people would have us believe. They would have the Federal Government keep those local jurisdictions from using this. But the fact of the matter is, let us take a look at it. Both sides and political leaders of both parties have gotten up, and very often do it in June when we are talking about students who are graduating from high school and cannot read their diploma, most of those students were tested with State tests. Most of those students got a C average or D average or something to get that high school diploma. But there was a bit of a fraud perpetrated on the student and on the family. And that is that somehow this student was performing to standards that were worthy of the diploma and was prepared to go on to the rest of American society, whether that is to work, or training, or education, or what have you. What, in fact, we see is a lot of students take State tests; and then when we assess them against the NAEP, huge numbers of those students that looked like they were performing very well on the State tests do terribly on the tough tests of the NAEP. The fact of the matter is that in the last 4 or 5 years American parents and communities have decided to reengage their education system. America has decided that if, in fact, it is going to compete, it is going to have to revalue education; that we have been letting it slide too long for our children, we have not asked enough of our children, we have not set the standards high enough, we have not recognized what they were able to, in fact, achieve. We simply let them muddle through. But parents now understand that muddling through is not good enough if their children are going to be able to actively participate in the American economy and in the world economy and as productive members of our society. In fact, in California what we now see is a change in terms of what local communities are doing in terms of the reinvestment of their tax dollars into the public system. In almost an unprecedented rate, bond issue after bond issue that must be passed by two-thirds vote is passing in our State because people have decided that they are going to reinvest in this public system. For all of the horror stories that they have been told about it, they still decide that that is where they want to make the investment. I would think that they would want the NAEP test so they can decide how they are doing, how they are doing alongside of North Carolina, which is achieving changes in its educational achievement and attainment that many States would envy. They would like to know how they are doing against Massachusetts or Alaska or Maryland. Is what they are doing now and the investments that they are making, the new investments in technology, the new investments in physical plants and equipment and teacher training, is that paying off? Are they headed in the right direction with their curriculum? That is the standard that NAEP would provide them to make those kinds of comparisons. They do not want to do that? Nothing in the law says they have to do that. They do not want to participate in that comparison? They do not have to. They do not want their children to take the test? They do not have to. But what, in fact, we are seeing is, we are seeing local school districts coming forward, asking to be able to participate, and we are seeing States saying they would like to participate. And somehow the Congress cannot find it quite right that these people have made an informed judgment, that they have made a good determination, what is good for their State or what is good for their school district, to participate in this. We have decided what we will substitute our judgment at the Federal level and they cannot participate in this program. I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has been on both sides of this issue, and so have I. I pushed very hard for opportunity-to-learn standards so we would make sure that resources would accommodate testing. But I also think that testing is a road map and is a guidance for communities as to whether or not they are getting shortchanged in some manner or fashion in those school districts. It also lets communities and school boards know where resources ought to be allocated, because all of those things are true today without the NAEP. It is all true today, the misallocation of resources, misallocations of talented teachers, roofs that leak and all the rest of it. NAEP is not going to cause that to happen. It is happening today. But it may very well provide a blueprint and a guideline and an assessment as to how these renewed efforts that are going on all over our country as people are reinvesting billions and billions of their local tax dollars back into the public education system in this country. This is a chance for them to determine whether or not they are making not only a wise decision, but the right decision. I happen to think they are making the right decision. But they need to know as to whether or not their local efforts are paying off on behalf of those students. But the heavy hand of the Federal Government apparently tonight is going to decide that they will not even be able to do that. If they vote at the local level, if they vote at the district level, if they vote at the school level or if they vote at the State level, the Federal Government tonight will decide that that will not happen.

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 a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the protest from the other side. If I was stonewalling this as hard as they are, I would raise the objections, too. The fact of the matter is the record is clear that when the Democrats were in control of Congress in the 102d Congress, 1991-92, we passed campaign finance reform and it was vetoed by George Bush. In 1993 and 1994 the Democratic controlled House and Senate again passed comprehensive campaign finance reform, but Mitch McConnell filibustered the final bill on a motion to appoint the conferees. With the Republican control now in 1995 and 1996, nothing from the Republican Congress; and now in the 105th Congress, nothing from the Republican Congress except a stonewall of the efforts. Our record is clear. When we controlled the House, this debate was brought to the floor of the House and the House worked its will, the Senate worked its will and, unfortunately, President Bush vetoed that legislation. So I can understand why my Republican colleagues are flailing their arms over there, but the fact of the matter is they are what stands between the American people and the cleaning up of this unacceptable campaign finance system that we currently have.

Mr. MILLER of California. I would be happy to. It is just an interesting notion of free speech. I would have to say again that some Member in the other body, apparently a single Member in the other body which I cannot identify, but the other body, acted in such a fashion that one cannot get a hearing on the Presidential nomination for Ambassador to Mexico. Those of my colleagues who are familiar with encryption can figure out what I said. Those of my colleagues who are not can read the morning paper and find out what took place. But the fact of the matter is in this body we see the same kinds of activities to deny a majority in this House a debate and a discussion and a vote on campaign finance reform, and that is tragic. That is tragic because what we see is the infusion of money. The infusion of money, much of the money that cannot be tracked, cannot be traced, nobody takes credit for it, and yet it shows up in campaigns on behalf of one interest versus another, apparently completely unregulated by the campaign laws of this Nation, is influencing how we are making decisions. It is corroding the democratic process. It is corroding the democratic process in this House, and it is corroding the democratic process in the Senate. The time has come to give the people an opportunity to see where we stand on campaign finance reform. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, although it is the Republican leadership that is currently blocking this. We just noticed this week in one of the more conservative magazines in this country that campaign finance reform has become one of the top issues among conservative constituencies, about whether Republicans will have campaign finance reform or they will not. It has jumped from being of little notice by the American people to now in the double digits of what they consider to be the most important issue confronting this country. Why is it the most important issue? Because whether we are doing military construction or whether we are doing a tax bill or a commerce bill or whatever it is, what we see now is the special interest influence on the outcome of these debates is disproportionate to that of the average American, and it is disproportionate for one reason. It is disproportionate because of money. That we are influenced no longer is just the fact that Congressman so-and-so represents us and we can pick up the phone and say ``I am an interested citizen in your district.'' What we now see is too often that phone call is delayed while we talk to people who give tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most recently now million dollar contributions. We now see it is the tobacco companies. We can talk all we want about tobacco while we were doing the tax bill, but it was not in there. And then late one night, the last night of the session, in the dark of night a $50 billion provision got put in that bill because of soft money and special interest money, not because of the American people.

Mr. MILLER of California. So some Member in the other body.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair explain to me how one talks about the other body, then?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, at the time that the previous question is put I will ask for a vote on it, hoping to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order a resolution at the end of the resolution, adding a new section which would say that before the House adjourns sine die for the first session of this Congress it shall consider campaign finance reform legislation under an open amendment process. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the purpose of this is to try once again to get the House to consider the important issue of campaign finance reform. We have seen, we have just come through an historic election in this country where hundreds of millions of dollars were raised and spent on behalf of various campaigns, and what we are witnessing now, both in the Senate and soon in the House, are investigations into how that money was spent by both the national committees and the administration and congressional campaign committees. However, what has become very, very clear in that situation is that there is a dramatic need to overhaul our campaign finance system in this country. Money is now flowing into campaigns that overwhelms all of the limits that originally were placed on Federal campaigns in terms of what individual candidates can take, what individuals can contribute, what organizations, political action committees can contribute. We now see that those reforms are being overwhelmed by the huge influx of soft money into these campaigns. I personally believe that we should have a ban on soft money, but more important than my personal belief is whether or not this House will schedule campaign finance reform for an open debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Last week, the American public witnessed the dictatorial activities of a senior Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee barring a hearing, a simple hearing, as to the fitness of a candidate for Ambassador to Mexico. Democracy seems to have been thrown out of the window here in terms of how these two bodies are now proceeding. We now see that clearly a majority of Members of the House support some kind of campaign finance reform in one fashion or another, but we are not allowed to debate it. We are not allowed to debate it because a handful of people in the leadership have decided that it will not come to the floor. Point Of Order

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, another week has gone by in Washington, and still the Republican leadership has not scheduled a vote on campaign finance reform. Delay has always been the strategy of those who are opposed to curbing the influence of special interest money. We cannot accept delay any longer. My colleagues and I are demanding that Speaker Gingrich schedule a vote to ban soft money, the huge unregulated contributions to both political parties that have corrupted our political process in Congress. But the Speaker's response is there is not time, or the Speaker's response is what we need is more money in our election system. That is wrong. Tomorrow afternoon the Republicans hope to leave work early in the day to travel to New York City to hold a massive fund raiser. Apparently there is enough time in the congressional schedule to leave early and fly to New York on private jets to raise money, but there is not enough time to schedule a vote on campaign finance reform and to ban soft money. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, to me, to my colleagues, and to the majority of the American people.

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, 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. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating 25 years of women serving in the U.S. maritime industry. The California Maritime Academy in Vallejo, CA, is celebrating this occasion at a series of events scheduled today, and I would like to commend the California Maritime Academy for its role in supporting and encouraging women in the maritime industry. The California Maritime Academy was established through legislation signed in June 1929 to train merchant marine officers for the maritime industry. Cal Maritime, a campus of the California State University, is the only maritime academy in the western region of the United States. Women first began pursuing careers in the maritime industry in 1972 when five female cadets enrolled at the California Maritime Academy. One hundred and thirty-seven women have graduated from the California Maritime Academy since 1972. One of the first women graduates at Cal Maritime, Lynn Fivey Korwatch, went on to sail as the first female captain of an American flagship, and another, Jean Thatcher Arnold, became the first female to be licensed as chief engineer in the U.S. merchant marine. Cal Maritime became the first maritime academy in the United States to have a woman serve as its president, Dr. Mary Lyons, from 1990 to 1996. Currently Sadie Rabe at Cal Maritime is the newly-selected corps commander whose responsibilities include administration and enforcement of all academy rules and regulations, and supervision of all cadet conduct. Cal Maritime can take great pride in the accomplishments and successes of both male and female graduates. Again, I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating 25 years of women in the U.S. maritime industry.

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, 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. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we now know where Speaker Gingrich stands on campaign finance reform. The Speaker does not think there is enough money. He says they ought to be able to give any amount they want. Let everyone go play. Mr. Speaker, when those people gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money, they were not playing. When they met in the minority whip's office to gut the Clean Water Act of this Nation, they were not playing. When they met with the leadership to gut the environmental laws of this Nation, they were not playing. Mr. Speaker, they are not playing when they give hundreds of thousands of dollars and then try to stop food safety laws in this Nation, and they certainly were not playing late at night last month when they got a $50 billion tax cut for the tobacco companies. No, Mr. Speaker, these are not people who are playing. These are special interests who are corrupting this democratic process, who are corrupting this House, who are corrupting this Senate, and who are corrupting the election process in this Nation. This is about hard ball. This is about special interests, tax preferences and gifts of public resources to campaign contributors.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am sure our colleagues will no doubt remember this very famous photograph. This is the photograph where Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton shook hands on July 11, 1995, and pledged to this Nation that they would reform the campaign finance system under which we govern. Mr. Speaker, since that time, President Clinton in the State of the Union asked the House of Representatives to pass campaign finance reform by July 4. The House of Representatives stonewalled. Yesterday, President Clinton again asked the House and vowed he would fight for campaign finance reform, and yet we have heard nothing from Speaker Gingrich. In fact, we have heard nothing from Speaker Gingrich on this subject, except that he believes we need more money in campaigns and not less money. But he will not schedule campaign finance reform for the House. He will not lead an effort to reform this system. He has continued to stonewall this. Mr. Speaker, we need more than this from the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The people's House and the people deserve campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, I say to Speaker Gingrich, ``Live up to your pledge. Live up to your handshake. Give the people the reform we need.''