George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for arranging for this special order where we would have an opportunity to talk about campaign finance reform, since we are precluded from talking about this in the regular order of business because of the reluctance or complete unwillingness of the Republican leadership to schedule this vote. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Allen] and the gentleman from Wisconsin and your colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who worked on this bipartisan reform. I think one of the important highlights of the reform that the gentleman put together was to show that, in fact, it could be done on a bipartisan fashion. Historically, when the Democrats are running the House, we reported out campaign finance reform. It was reported out of the House and sent to the Senate and died. It was reported out of the House at one point and sent to the President and President Bush vetoed the bill. The theory was, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind] said, the advantage had to immediately go one place or another. I think what the freshman task force has shown is, in fact, we can achieve legislation that cleans up this absolutely unacceptable finance system that we have today, and it can be done with agreement between Republicans and Democrats on how that can be done. At a minimum, that ought to be allowed to be heard in this, the people's House. The notion that we now have is essentially one individual, the Speaker, standing in the way of the people of the United States being given a chance to hear a debate and to resolve some questions about campaign finance reform and about a current system that is corroding and corrupting the principles of democracy. Mr. Kind is quite correct. This is changing the way we make decisions. It was not by accident that the tax bill that we just passed was late at night, loaded up with a number of provisions that go to benefit people who had made huge soft money contributions, huge soft money contributions, and they were put into a bill that none of us knew about until after the fact. That is what is happening when people give parties, give individuals hundreds of thousands of dollars, they expect something in return. It is just a simple fact. And that soft money is now becoming inconsistent with our acting in a democratic fashion about the issues that confront this country and confront our constituents. I have to tell the gentleman that I think that as this issue progresses, as we continue to demand a vote by this House on these issues, that hopefully part of that process will be to give air to the proposal that the gentleman has brought forward to this House, because it does, as the gentleman points out, contain a ban on soft money. I think it is terribly important. That soft money is overwhelming everything we try to do in our districts. You can go out and run a grass-roots campaign, and go out and shake every hand and knock on every door, go to every rotary and Lions Club, meet with all the business organizations, and what happens, a couple of weeks out from the election, boom, you get hit with a media campaign, and it is about soft money and it is about characterizing your record, and it undoes your relationship with your constituents. It puts mistrust in, it characterizes you in a negative fashion, and you have no ability to fight back. The old campaigner, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is here, he was one of the authors of the campaign reform that came out of Watergate. Those limits, that have in fact worked, have been overwhelmed by soft money. I want to again commend the gentleman for this special order, for all of the time the gentleman has spent in hammering this out, and I want to thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that tonight spoke out in favor of the gentleman's legislation and in favor of a ban on soft money. Hopefully, more of them will do that, and we will eventually have a vote to end the influence of soft money in politics. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman and the chairman of the committee for working out this agreement. This will enable those school districts who are truly interested in not only reforming their districts but providing improved results for their students an opportunity to draw upon the best programs that we have in this Nation with the best research and, to date, the best outcomes. I have a school in my own district, Peres School in the city of Richmond, that had invited in the John Hopkins program, Success For All, the Wings and Roots program, and redesigned a school that serves the poorest children in my district. Not only is this program hopefully going to provide better results for these children, but it also provided a means of a circuit breaker from just doing the same old thing that has failed these children year in and year out. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out earlier, it had to be done by bringing the teachers, bringing the administrators, the school board, together to vote in an 80 percent ratio in favor of going in this direction. Those teachers who felt that they could not do it or did not want to do it were able to go to another school they were more comfortable with for whatever reason. But they have put together a team and are heading in the same direction. It is very much like when you have a football program at the high school. You try to get the freshman squad and the junior varsity squad and the varsity squad heading in the same direction so they are able to understand what is taking place, instead of having a lot of ad hoc programs started based upon somebody's notion of what works or what will succeed or what will not. Here we will have hard research. This is a bottoms up approach. They were invited in by the Richmond school district, by the parents, to see if they could help. I notice that our State Department of Education has invited in four schools to take a look at all of these programs this last summer, to let them explain where they might be helpful and let the districts pick that which they think is the best fit for them. But, again, the common element is a strong research as to the effectiveness of these programs, parental involvement, and a new commitment, a new commitment to excellence by both parents and teachers.

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

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 offer a privileged motion.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for offering this amendment. This program is a valued program, and it does teach children about the Bill of Rights and about our civic system of government in this United States. I must also say that I think the same students studying the Government would be surprised to find out that here in the people's House, we are unable to get an issue as important to the electoral process and to the participation of the American people within the electoral process, a matter of campaign finance reform, scheduled in the House of Representatives. These very same people who are studying about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States and guaranteeing one man-one vote, a fundamental finding of the Supreme Court, will find out that it is not one man-one vote, not one person-one vote, but it becomes something other than that when you engage in the soft money exploitations of the campaign laws of this country. We are witnessing hearings now that continue to discover the overwhelming amounts of soft money that have been plowed into campaigns, some disclosed, which we are finding about; unfortunately, much of it not disclosed, that we have not yet found out about, soft money that has flowed to both parties, that dramatically amplifies the voice of those individuals giving soft money to both parties, entities such as the Philip Morris Co., R.J. Nabisco, Federal Home Loan, Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Atlantic Richfield, Walt Disney, Chevron, Coca Cola, Boeing, AT&T, the telecommunications corporation, and Anheuser-Busch. The list goes on and on and on. What it adds up is millions and millions of dollars that have been funneled to each party, to overwhelm the basic limitations that we have in this system to try to make sure that individuals can participate with meaning in the election of Members of the House of Representatives. So while I strongly support this amendment and this program, and I commend the authors of this amendment for bringing it to the floor, I think that we ought to fully understand that it is not all as these young people will study. The hard-ball realities of politics is that there is a filibuster going on in this House against bringing campaign finance reform to the floor of the House so the body can work its will, so we can have competing proposals on the floor, so hopefully we can get rid of the soft money that has become sewer money, that is undermining the processes in this House, that is undermining our electorial process, and, in fact, caused people to stay away from the elections in this country because they do not believe that their vote counts, they do not believe that their voice matters, they believe that the big special interests are those who win day in and day out. It is very hard to argue against the public on that matter, because the fact of the matter is that the big special interests are engaged in both parties. They are betting on both black and red. If they were at the roulette table, they cannot lose. They cannot lose. The fact of the matter is it ought not to be allowed to continue, and we ought to have the right in this House before we get out of this House this year, in this month of September, we ought to be able to have a free and open debate on campaign finance reform. But we are not able to have that. Therefore, continuing the process against the actions of the Republican leadership here to bottle up campaign finance reform, I will be asking for a vote on this amendment, and I encourage Members to support this worthy amendment dealing with the program of We The People.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, many of us this morning are demanding that Speaker Newt Gingrich schedule a vote on campaign finance reform this month. Rest assured that we will continue to make this demand until it is complied with. This is not an issue that either party can avoid. Massive unregulated contributions of the so-called soft money have corrupted both parties and have corrupted this institution. Yet it is the Republican Speaker of the House and the Republican Leader of the Senate who are today standing in the way of reform. Today, money in politics affects everything lawmakers do, even our health and safety. For example, the Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers reportedly spent over $300,000 in the 1996 elections. And today they are in the Congress actively lobbying against new proposed meat inspection standards in the wake of the massive outbreak of E. coli. America should make it clear to those in charge of this House; they should tell Speaker Gingrich and tell those in charge of the Senate, Majority Leader Lott, that they want him to ban soft money; that they want the Congress back so their voices can be heard and they want it done this month.

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 offer a privileged motion.

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 Chair's approval of the Journal.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Over 20 years ago we passed IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I was one of the authors of that legislation. And one of the reasons we passed that act, the compelling reason we passed that act, because these very same school districts and administrators and so forth that so many are now championing, saying they could use this money better than the Wage and Hour Division, were the same people who denied disabled children access to the schools. They denied it as a matter of their school policy. And the reason we have a Federal mandate is because we had to mandate under Federal law that these children be allowed to cross the threshold of the school doors. In States all over this country, but for this law millions of children would not get an education, simply would not be allowed in schools because they were on crutches, they were in a wheelchair, because they suffered from Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy. They would not be allowed because that is what school administrators all over this country decided. Oh, they can be educated in basements, they could be educated off-site, but they could not come to school with the regular students. If we never put a dime into this mandate, this mandate should stand. But through the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], many people preceded them, we put a substantial amount of money into this effort. And where are we today? We are almost a billion new dollars in this effort after the reauthorization on the unanimous bipartisan basis, on the unanimous bipartisan basis. And today what do we see? We see a group of Members on the other side seeking to use these children as a weapon, as a weapon against the rights of working men and women to have the laws enforced, to guarantee them the minimum wage that they are entitled to under the law, to guarantee them the overtime pay that they are entitled to under the law, to guarantee them the comptime that they are entitled to, to guarantee the maternity leave policy that they are entitled to under the law, because know what? Know what? Unfortunately, out there in the private sector among those noble employers there are thousands of them on a daily basis that tell their employees: ``When you come to work, don't clock in until after the first hour; when you stay late, go off the clock early,'' so they do not have to pay them the full minimum wage or they do not have to pay them the overtime. This is not a matter of conjecture, this is a matter of record that hundreds of thousands of workers on a regular basis are denied their overtime pay. That overtime pay is the difference of whether or not they can provide for their family or not provide for their family. That minimum wage pays the difference of whether or not they need public assistance or they do not need public assistance, whether they can provide child care or they cannot provide child care for their children as they work. This is about the enforcement of people in the garment industry that we have found chained to their sewing machines. This is about the enforcement against people who we found chained to the machines and doors locked and working in oppressive situations. This is about whether or not Mexican citizens are brought here who are deaf and forced to work against all of the labor laws in this country. This is about Vietnamese women, Laotian women in Los Angeles. So now do we want to use the handicapped children, the disabled children and their families of this Nation as a weapon against these policies that we do not happen to agree with? The author of this amendment does not happen to agree with the minimum wage. The author of this amendment opposes the Family and Medical Leave Act. So he has decided, he has decided that he will conjure up a transfer amendment that will tug at our heart strings about disabled children, and hopefully will disguise, will disguise the effort here to deny the enforcement of the basic laws of American workers, and in most instances, the basic rights and the basic laws of American workers who are at the lowest edge of the wage scales in this country, people who work in hot, heavy, and dangerous industries, people who toil in jobs that most Americans are not interested in having. Go to the migrant fields, see the conditions under which they work, and then say we are going to deny them the enforcement. If you do not like those laws, why do you not just stand up and try to repeal them? Some, I believe, voted against the minimum wage because they do not believe in it. But do not use this way, do not use these disabled children, do not use their families to suggest that somehow we can provide a dramatic difference.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just reassert my charge. If we are into bona fides on disabled children, I would invite you to look at my history, and I would also invite you to come to the George Miller Centers for Severely Disabled Children. At any time, you are all welcome. But the fact of the matter is, those children should not be used to devastate the wage and hour enforcement for the working Americans in this country. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. If I might ask another question, once again absent from the agenda is any reference to campaign finance reform. Can the gentleman tell us what might be suggested there for either next week or the remainder of the session?

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I would just want to say that in that case, Members should expect to have a continuation of procedural and other votes being called throughout next week in an effort to try and get the leadership to tell us when and how they are going to address campaign finance reform before we adjourn. So Members ought to expect that some of those votes may come without notice.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a couple of questions, one is, my understanding is that with respect to the current appropriations bill that is under consideration, on Monday we will only do title I. Hopefully, we will finish title I. If for some reason we finish title I early, title II and title III will be carried over and will be begun on Tuesday; is that right?

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 offer a motion.