George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today exemplifies the dangerous liaison between private interests and the majority in the House when it comes to amending our Nation's laws. That close partnership is no where more evident than in the proposed revisions of the Clean Water Act--the law that has cleaned up San Francisco Bay near my district, and thousands of other rivers, streams, bays, and other bodies of water throughout America over the past quarter century. Are there problems with the Clean Water Act? Of course. I have concerns about some of the ways in which the law has been implemented, too, and if we had a real commitment to reform, I have little doubt we could develop a sound alternative to this bill. But let us make no mistake: H.R. 961 is not about fixing the mistakes. It is about devastating one of the great achievements of environmental policy in this country. And this emasculation of the law is taking place at the request, and at the direction of, powerful special interests who have been granted unprecedented access to the drafting of the legislation. Strewn throughout H.R. 961, particularly in title III, are special exemptions, waivers, and exclusions that benefit these special interests: An exemption from effluent limitations for coal remining operations that discharge into waters that already fail to meet water quality standards; A provision limiting EPA's ability to upgrade discharge standards for industrial polluters which benefits the pulp and paper industry and others; An exemption from wetlands permit requirements for iron and steel manufacturers; An exemption from the silver discharge standard for the photoprocessing industry; An exemption for oil and gas pipelines. Exemption after exemption provided to high polluting industries by this legislation that masquerades as reform. This is not reform. It is a clear example of special interest legislation, written on behalf of powerful interests and at the expense of our environment and the health and safety of the people of the United States. I have introduced legislation that would require that the authors of any legislation prepared by private entities be disclosed before the Congress voted to make special interest provisions the law of the land. Although the majority has not yet accorded me a hearing on my bill, I am hopeful that the majority will voluntarily disclose who sought and wrote these special interest provisions before asking our colleagues to vote them into law. Regardless who authored these exemptions, they are bad policy and should be rejected by the House. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 2, 1995. To: Distribution. From: Patricia Law. Re: Clean Water Task Forces. Thank you for agreeing to participate in a very ambitious legislative timetable for reporting a Clean Water bill, but one which we hope you will find constructive and will result in a product that we can all support. Attached is the list of participants from yesterday's meeting indicating each organization's primary area of focus if it was provided. We will notify you as soon as possible of the Subcommittee Member assignments and dates for Task Force meetings. Our hope is to have these meetings at the beginning of next week. In the meantime, we encourage you to work together to identify outstanding issues and to formulate your proposals for addressing them. The following groups have agreed to take the lead for this front work. If you are not identified on the attached list as having an interest in a particular task force, we suggest that you call the lead. Nonpoint Source and Watershed: Thomas W. Curtis, Director, Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/624-5389, 202/624-5313 (fax). Point Source: Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager, Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20062-2000, 202/463-5627, 202/887-3445 (fax). Funding and Unfunded Mandates: Robert K. Reeg, Manager, Congressional & State Relations, National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax). Stormwater: Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004, 202/626- 3028, 202/626-3043 (fax). Wetlands: Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax). questions or assistance that you require from us. Again, we appreciate your involvement and look forward to working with you. clean water task force participants Joseph M. McGuire, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Allied Signal, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/662-2657, 202/662-2674 (fax), (point source). Lee Garrigan, American Consulting Engineers Council, 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/347-7474, 202/898-0068 (fax), (funding). Sam White, America Crop Protection Association, 1156 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/872- 3846, 202/463-0474 (fax), (nonpoint source). Mark Maslyn, American Farm Bureau Federation and Clean Water Working Group, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024, 202/484-3615, 202/484-3604 (fax) (nonpoint source). Karla Perri, Director, Legislative Affairs, American Forest & Paper Association, 1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/463-2436, 202/463-2424 (fax), (nonpoint source, wetlands, point source, stormwater). Christopher Myrick, Director, Government Relations, American Home Products Corporation, Suite 1001 1726 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/659-8320, 202/659-2158 (fax), (point source, nonpoint source). Cary L. Cox, Ashland Inc. and American Petroleum Institute, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., North Building, Suite 540, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/223-8290 x223, 202/293-2913 (fax), (point source). Jennifer Boucher, Associated Builders and Contractors, 1300 North Seventeenth Street, Rosslyn, VA 22209, 703/812-2000, 702/812-8202 (fax), (funding). Heidi H. Stirrup, Director, Congressional Relations, Associated General Contractors of America, 1957 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-5199, 202/393-2040, 202/347-5412 (fax), (stormwater, funding). Ken Kirk, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/833-4653, 202/833-4567 (fax), (funding). Linda Eichmiller, Deputy Director, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, 750 First Street, N.E., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/898- 0905, 202/898-0929 (fax), (stormwater, point source, nonpoint source, funding). Rose Marie Sanders, Legislative Representative, Air & Water Chemical Manufacturers Association, 2501 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, 202/887-1123, 202/463-1598 (fax), (point source). Edward M. Kavjian, Washington Representative, General Motors Corporation, 1660 L Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/775-5086, 202/775-5032 (fax). David T. Modi, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Georgia Pacific Corporation, 1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 775, Washington, D.C. 20006, 202/828-9631, 202/223-1398 (fax). Aleesa L. Bell, Washington Representative, International Paper and Great Lakes Water Quality Coalition, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/628-1223, 202/628-1368 (fax), (point source). Victoria Shaw, Senior Manager of Government Relations, National Association of Metal Finishers, 1200 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/429-5108, 202/223-4579 (fax), (point source). Greg Ruehle, Director, Private Lands, Water and Environment, National Cattlemen's Association and Clean Water Working Group, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/347-0228, 202/638-0607 (fax), (nonpoint source). Karen Ann Mogan, Director, Environmental Affairs, National Food Processors Association, 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/639-5929, 202/637-8068 (fax) (stormwater, point source). Thomas W. Curtis, Director, Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/ 624-5389, 202/624-5313 (fax), (nonpoint source). Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/626-3028, 202/626- 3043 (fax), (stormwater, nonpoint source, watershed, funding). Robert S. Long, Vice President, Government Affairs, National Mining Association, 1130 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-4677, 202/463-2663, 202/833-1965 (fax), (stormwater). Robert K. Reeg, Manager, Congressional & State Relations, National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax), (funding). John M. Stinson, Director, Government Affairs, National Steel Corporation, 1575 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/638-7707, 202/289-4616 (check fax), (point source). A. William Hillman, Director of Government Relations, National Utility Contractors Association and Clean Water Council, 4301 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 360, Arlington, VA 22203-1627, 703/358-9300, 703/358-9307 (fax), (funding). Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax), (wetlands). Robert Hurley, Senior Vice President, R Duffy Wall & Associates, Inc., Suite 410 South, 601 13th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/737-0100, 202/628-3965 (fax). Jean R. Toohey, Manager, Government Relations, Rhone- Pouleac, 1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/898-3185, 202/628-0500 (fax). Jeffrey S. Longworth, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/342-8642, 202/338-5534 (fax), (stormwater). Jeffrey L Leiter, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/342-8490, 202/338-5534 (fax), (stormwater). Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager, Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20062-2000, 202/463- 5627, 202/887-3445 (fax). Philip Cummings, Attorney at Law, Clean Water Act Reauthorization Coalition, McKutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/628-4900, 202/628-4912 (fax), (point source). Peter A. Molinaro, Assistant Director, Government Affairs, Union Carbide Corporation and Clean Water Act Reauthorization Coalition, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 230, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/393-3211, 202/347-1684 (fax), (CWARC, point source).

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I make the same request as my two colleagues. I was in the same meeting with them, and I missed the vote on rollcall 309.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. So in fact what you are saying is when they get a COLA increase, the vast amount of that COLA will simply be absorbed in additional Medicare costs to the Social Security recipient?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle have raised the question about exactly what is going on with the Republican budget process where we are now a month late in meeting the deadline, a deadline that we have not missed over the last 4 years. I guess the answer is in the daily press. That is, that the Republican leadership is having a terrible time with now trying to figure out how to connect all of the dots in what they have promised in their budget to the American public. That is, that they would provide a huge tax cut to the wealthiest people in this Nation, they would balance the budget, they would add money to the military, and they would not touch Social Security. Of course, what we now find out is that they cannot meet those targets without touching Social Security, and they plan to do more than just touch Social Security. The speculation runs from cuts of somewhere around $200 billion over the next 7 years to Senators estimating as high as $400 billion. What that means, if you just take an average, if you just save $250 billion, you are talking over that 7-year period of asking senior citizens to pay somewhere between $3,000 and $3,700 more for their health care. The problem is that many, many of these senior citizens simply have no way to replace that income. They have no way to replace the money that they would have to pay out for the additional cost of Medicare. They have no ability to go back to work. They cannot get a job. They cannot lean on their children any harder. So those cuts are immediately translated to the declining assets and the financial well-being of the senior citizens. The Republican leadership has run around the last couple of days trying to explain that this is really about their saving Medicare, this is about reforming Medicare. But it is interesting, as each objective observer who has looked at this says that this continues to translate into cuts to Medicare that must be made up by the beneficiaries of that plan, the senior citizens of this country, the $3,000 that I just talked about. It is also interesting to note that when you get into a discussion of rural hospitals, we find out that there are 10 million Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural America, where often there is only a single hospital available to service that population and the rest of the community, and that these kinds of cuts, the hospital association tells us, translate into a serious threat of these hospitals closing, and not only the senior citizens losing access to that hospital but the entire community losing access to that hospital. We also know that these rural residents very often are more likely than urban residents to be uninsured. So the ability to offset these cuts would then be shifted in rural areas, perhaps to those who have less access to insurance. It is interesting also to note that the plan of just cutting across the board in Medicare is resisted by the National Association of Manufacturers, companies like Eastman Kodak that say if you do that, once again you are taking backs of working people who are already paying very substantial premiums for current Medicare recipients and for their future cost. This kind of leads you to what happened yesterday when Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich called a news conference to explain all this, and as they found that they could not explain it to the press, they finally just simply walked out of the news conference. They just walked off stage. They called the news conference, they said, ``We want the news conference to explain to the American people how we are saving Medicare,'' and when they got into the news conference a few minutes, they found out that they could not explain it because the numbers do not add up. They cannot protect Social Security under their plan or they cannot protect the balanced budget under their plan or they cannot protect the tax cut under their plan. So they simply in a huff walked out of the room and said they would get back to everyone later. That is what the fear is about in the country today, is that they will get back to us later. I guess the new date for the budget is on May 17, and at that point then we will, I guess, be able to unravel the puzzle here on how they are going to meet the goal of the balanced budget which almost everybody in the country believes should happen, the goal of the tax cut which most of the country thinks is kind of a luxury when you are running a deficit of $250 to $300 billion a year, a $4 trillion national debt, to now borrow money to give people a tax cut or borrow money from the Social Security recipients to give the people a tax cut. This just no longer makes any kind of economic sense, and looks very bad both for the deficit, for Social Security recipients, and eventually for low-income people who rely on the programs that have already been cut. I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the senior citizens of this country should be deeply concerned about the rumblings that they hear on the Republican side of the aisle. The Republicans have now come to face the fact that they cannot give tax cuts to the wealthy, balance the budget, and preserve Medicare, so now they are devising a plan by which they can make the cuts in Medicare to provide for the tax cuts for the wealthy. I think we have to ask ourselves, is this really what America expected at the time of election, that we would pass on massive tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country and we would do it at the expense of the Medicare plan, the health safety net for millions of seniors who have nowhere other to turn for health care in this country? I am saying to the senior citizens of this country, keep your eyes open and your ears tuned to the news waves because what the Republicans have in store is nothing but bad for the Medicare system of this country. If they do not do that, what they have in store is to add another $150 billion in budget cuts to $1 out of every $3 that the Federal Government now spends, so they have run up against the cruel facts that they have promised more than they can deliver, and it looks like the beneficiaries of that will be the wealthy of the Nation, and the victims will be the health care of the senior citizens.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last week I was honored to address the Second Annual Service to Children Awards Dinner in Los Angeles, and to present to Nancy Daly the Lifetime Service Award. Ms. Daly, the founder of United Friends of the Children, is one of the most remarkable, effective and persistent advocates I have ever known, and she richly deserves this great honor. I would like to share my remarks with the Members of the House. Tribute to Nancy Daly I am very honored to make some remarks this evening, because Nancy Daly is a woman who sends a powerful message-- to Los Angeles and to America--about what it means to dedicate ourselves to children. And I speak as a member of a profession where proclaiming your concern about children is a requirement of membership. My path and Nancy's have crossed many times, including our service together on the National Commission on Children with Senator Jay Rockefeller, where she was the leading proponent for family preservation programs. But we worked on the same issues for years before we ever met. Fifteen years ago, after years of investigations and hearings, Congress enacted my bill to reform the national foster care and adoption laws, P.L. 96-272. It was at that same time that Nancy went out to visit MacLaren Children's Center, never dreaming that visit would change her life's work or the lives of so many others in this city. While I was massaging my colleagues in Congress to vote for my bill, Nancy was shampooing the heads of foster kids at MacLaren, and deciding that this system needed change, and that she was the one to change it. It was in that same year that Nancy founded United Friends of the Children, that stunningly successful volunteer organization working with the abandoned and neglected children of MacLaren, working to improve the children's resources, their educational development, supporting college tuition programs and providing critical transitional help from foster care to independence through creation of low cost housing for those emancipated from the system. Throughout the 1980s, Nancy became one of the premier advocates for family preservation programs--efforts designed by agencies and the courts to provide intensive service to at-risk families to help them work through serious problems rather than fragmenting, at great cost to the children and often to the state as well. She has mobilized the formidable resources of the entertainment community on behalf of children's issues, and is a vigorous promoter of programs to assure that children have proper legal representation in the court system when critical decisions are being made about their placements, their rights and their futures. And she played the central role in the creation of the Los Angeles Department of Children and Youth to give young people an advocate in government even though they are too young to have a voice in its management. Not bad for a volunteer. As Nancy was creating and participating in these, and many more activities, I served as the first chairman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in the Congress, a panel created by Tip O'Neill at my urging because children simply were not receiving the special attention they merited in federal policy. Oh, sure there were educational laws and health laws, foster care laws and child care laws: but no one was looking out for the kids, not for the program or the bureaucracy or the politics: just the kids. And that Select Committee did what it was supposed to do. We raised the visibility of children, we held up a mirror to the Congress and said, ``Like 'em or not, these are America's kids.'' We travelled throughout this country for eight years, putting children on the Congress' agenda: children with disabilities, children without homes, children of violence, children with AIDS, children in gangs, children without food, children in poverty. America's future. America's ``most precious resource.'' The subject of every politician's favorite photo op. And I think many in Congress were truly shocked by what they saw: the millions of children, about to inherit this nation, who were growing up in Third World conditions, abused, hungry, violent, with little or no investment in society or even in their own futures. The mission of the Select Committee, you see, wasn't to score political points, but--perhaps naively--to depoliticize children in the political debate: to make it clear to conservative Republicans, Yellow Dog Democrats and Bleeding Heart liberals alike that you can't lecture America's children into being good citizens, or productive workers or responsible adults if you ignore their most basic needs in their formative years. Children really don't care if you're liberal or conservative, a hard heart or a bleeding heart. They don't care if you're a volunteer, a case worker, a lawyer, or a congressman. They know when they're hurting, when they're scared, when they're hungry, when they're confused, and all they want to know is, ``Are you going to be there for me?'' And, I suppose, that is what is so terribly tragic about what is going on in Washington today. A new political leadership in Congress, which shows no evidence at all of understanding children or public policy towards children, is putting a torch to most of what Nancy and I, and many others in this room and across America, have spent our lives doing. And don't get me wrong: I have no particular concern if someone wants to rewrite the nutrition, child care, family violence, foster care, adoption laws I wrote in the '70s, '80s and '90s--if they want to make them better. But let's not kid anyone: the new congressional leadership isn't about improving the system, they are about destroying it, and the children be damned. How else do you explain proposals to throw infants off income assistance because of the mistakes of their mothers? How else do you explain $7 billion in nutrition cuts-- exposing pregnant women, newborns and school children to serious deficiencies? How else do you explain a punitive ``welfare reform'' plan that puts no one to work, but deprives five million people of basic assistance--300,000 right here in Los Angeles? How else do you explain dissembling our foster care reforms with the result that children will be housed in unlicensed homes, with few if any services to them or their parents, with no legal representation or hopes for permanent homes? I remember well in the early '80s when David Stockman came before the Budget Committee and I asked him how, in light of the uncontroverted evidence that the WIC program saved babies lives and money, too, he could justify slashing that program. And program worked, he just didn't like it. Fortunately, at that time, we had a Congress that stood up to such dogma--on a bipartisan basis, I might add--and saved effective programs for children. But those days are long gone. The new extremist element in control of the Congress neither understands the programs nor appreciates their achievements. With a rhetorical tip of the hat to the apparently magical capabilities of state and local governments, with a cynical reliance on the limitless abilities of private charities, they have set about destroying our ability to protect children and give them hope. You know, they call the Republican welfare reform bill the Personal Responsibility Act. And I am all for people meeting their responsibilities--to their children, to their families, and to their communities. When people don't push their kids to finish school or support their kids, or look hard to find employment, I think emphasizing personal responsibility makes a lot of sense. But government has responsibilities, too, particular to our poorest, and most vulnerable, children. I have no admiration for political leaders, and make no concession to political strategies, that abandon those responsibilities to America's children. These people aren't just about taking away the safety net. They want to fold up the tent and put the whole show out of business. I don't know anyone who's not committed to making the bureaucracy more efficient and the programs more cost- effective. We made important changes in welfare policy, in child care, in services to dysfunctional families and children in crisis, and those policies work, with a lot of hard effort from volunteers and professionals at all levels. And we need to make more. But you don't cure nutritional problems by cutting one fifth of the food stamp program a program that feeds 14 million children--as the House-passed welfare bill would do. You don't give kids a chance in the future by denying children with Down Syndrome and cerebral palsy financial assistance, as it would do. You don't make the foster care system more responsive by eliminating basic children's rights and turning the program over to the states, half of which are under court orders for failing to comply with the law. So, at a time when should be learning from our experiences and building stronger programs, people like Nancy Daly are trudging to Capitol Hill and meeting with every Senator and aide she can find, as she did this month, urging that they put aside partisanship, ideology and fanaticism and think, as she has been for twenty years, about the children. Nancy has a lot to teach the Congress. She can teach them about the value of comprehensive services, about the need for legal advocates, about the contributions (and the limitations) of what volunteerism can do. She can demonstrate to them the need for a responsive government and the necessity of having someone in that bureaucracy whose job to think about children first. She can even show them how a liberal Democrat and a powerful Republican can get along together. I would have hope that, at this stage, we wouldn't be engaged in a national debate about whether to kill programs or to keep them, but rather about how to make them more efficient for taxpayers and more effective for children. I believe quite frankly, it is a waste of Nancy Daly and many of those in this room to have to exert such effort and influence just to keep up where we are in terms of a national commitment of excellence to children. But I am enough of an historian and a politician to know that sometimes you have to play defense and work and wait for a better time to come. Unfortunately, the children are waiting, too, and millions of them do not have four or eight years to spare while politicians and voters figure out what they really want to do. I see these obstacles as a challenge to those of us who hold a public trust. I have little pity or tolerance for those who bemoan the loss of a majority, or a chairmanship, or the other accoutrements of power. Other have lost far more than we, and they will continue to lose, to have their opportunities shattered and their futures stunted, if we wallow in self-absorbed anguish over an election. Nancy Daly serves as an inspiration because she understands that what matters are the results. Beginning without a shred of political power, she has built monuments to the hopes and the futures of children throughout America, and I very much doubt she has given an hour since last November to questioning whether she should do anything but redouble her efforts on behalf of the kids who need her, and us, more now then ever. Nancy, my warm congratulations to you on receipt of the richly deserved Lifetime Service Award. And since it is a ``lifetime'' award, I would note that you have several additional years of service that we are all looking forward to. I am delighted to be able to participate in this tribute to a wonderful woman tonight, and honored that you have allowed me to share this evening with all of you.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, and fellow Members, I bring to your attention the attached article by Charles McCoy, from the April 4, 1995, edition of the Wall Street Journal. Mr. McCoy presents an even-handed report of the congressional debate on the issue of private property rights and the ``takings'' issue, which, after passing the House, is now underway in the Senate. As Mr. McCoy notes, the House bill would require the Government to pay landowners full compensation when certain environmental protection actions trim the value of any portion of their land by 20 percent or more. In the Senate, majority leader Bob Dole has introduced a measure (S. 605) that would lift the threshold to 33 percent and would apply to all Federal actions. Proponents contend that the Republican bills aim merely to put common sense back in Government's attitude about private property. Perhaps these advocates can explain the logic behind these examples of litigation currently being fought under the guise of private property rights: Summitville Mine. The Canadian company that operated Summitville Mine created a Superfund site that will cost the taxpayers about $120 million to clean up, filed bankruptcy and left the country. Now the owners of the mine site are suing the Governor of Colorado on the grounds that because the State permitted the mine, that gave the owners significant profit but also polluted their property, the value of the land was decreased due to regulatory action. California Central Valley [CVP]: Big agricultural corporations now receive huge amounts of public water at subsidized rates to pour on their corps. Under the CVP legislation enacted in 1992, Federal and State regulators intend to divert some of that water to save and restore salmon runs. Now, the agriculture bigwigs are claiming that if these plans go through, and the takings legislation is enacted, they will claim reimbursement for any diversion of their subsidized water allotments--at market rates--not the subsidized rates. The argument for ``takings'' legislation is not simply about that bedrock of American values: protection of private property. Unfortunately for those citizens who honestly believe in the rightness of their cause, it is more a ruse being played on the American people by the proposal's strongest supporters: industries such as mining, ranching, timber, oil and gas, and agriculture. These corporate players and their lawyers know that if enacted, this bill will not bring common sense to governmental actions, but will flagrantly inflate the number of lawsuits crowding our courts and cause governmental gridlock at all levels. I urge you to take the time to read Mr. McCoy's article. [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 4, 1995] The Push To Expand Property Rights Stirs Both Hopes and Fears--Some California Farmers See Windfall in GOP Bills; Officials Fret About Costs do grazing elk ``take'' grass? (By Charles McCoy) The new Republican-controlled Congress is on its way to passing the biggest expansion of property rights in U.S. history. In California, this could very well radically drive up the cost of saving salmon--and add to the tide of litigation those rescue efforts have already spawned. Indeed, the Republican proposals, depending on their final form, promise a procession of policy zigzags and lawsuits at all levels of government, both critics and even some proponents agree. murky consequences Consider the salmon example: Big agricultural corporations in California's arid Central Valley now get huge amounts of public water at subsidized rates to pour on crops. But some of the state's historic salmon streams are drying up; under previous congressional mandates, federal and state regulators want to divert some of this water to restore salmon runs. the House last month, corporate farmers would have to be compensated for any diversion of their allotments. In fact, under some circumstances, the corporate farmers could claim reimbursement at market rates--meaning reimbursement out of the federal treasury at rates 10 times the subsidized rate they now pay. ``We have a right to that water, and if the government wants it for fish, they have to pay us,'' says Jason Peltier, a top California farm lobbyist. Until now, federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have, in a number of decisions, rejected this view. But the breadth and wording of the new Republican takings proposals would unquestionably give Central Valley farmers a potent new weapon; they are already preparing lawsuits in anticipation of passage of a generous takings law. blessing or disaster? Environmentalists are naturally alarmed. Says Hal Candee, an environmental lawyer with the Nature Resources Defense Council: ``This is insane--the public is already subsidizing irrigation that is devastating the environment, and now we have to pay even more to make it stop?'' Moreover, the takings movement is being watched with growing concern by numerous state and local governments, which fear a huge hit on the public treasury--or a sharp decline in their ability to enforce what they consider reasonable environmental, planning and other regulations. In Riverdale, Calif., a fast-growing Southern California city bedeviled by numerous endangered species, traffic and open- space conflicts, city planner Stephen Whyld calls the new takings proposals ``prescriptions for total gridlock.'' Nonsense, say proponents, who argue that such legislation is necessary to rein in overweening regulators. ``It's obvious that bureaucracies from the federal level down to the local school board have come to believe that the Fifth Amendment just doesn't apply to them,'' says R.S. Radford, a property-law expert at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal think tank that has handled many takings lawsuits on behalf of landowners. The takings movement, he says, confronts ``terrible abuses by government against individuals.'' Central Valley farmers, for example, have long painted efforts to save salmon as an example of government ``worrying more about fish than people.'' What is certain is that the takings campaign, both in Congress and in a number of states, seeks to significantly expand interpretation of the Constitution's so-called takings clause. This is a snippet of the Fifth Amendment that holds that government ``shall not take private property for public use without just compensation.'' keeping a promise The recent House proposal also fulfills a promise in the ``Contract With America'' and is strongly supported by large industries such as mining, ranching, oil and agriculture. It requires the government to pay landowners full compensation when certain government actions to protect the environment trim the value of any portion of their property by 20% or more. The Senate is considering a proposal championed by presidential hopeful and Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole that lifts that threshold to 33%--but it would apply to all federal regulations, not just environmental rules. Whatever its final form, such a bill, if passed, would be a populist rallying point that may be difficult for President Clinton to veto. Even if he does, the movement has plenty of steam at a state and local level. Colorado, Oregon, Texas and other states are considering their own expanded takings bills. In fact, some private-property interests have already begun to push novel legal theories under the current state of takings law--theories that they clearly hope will be enshrined under the more expansive Republican bills. Wayne Hage, a Nevada rancher and a leader of the West's private- property movement, alleges in a lawsuit pending in the federal court of appeals in Washington that the government owes him compensation because fish and game agencies don't prevent elk herds from drinking from his streams and munching range on his 7,000-acre spread. That is a taking of his water and grass, he contends. Mr. Hage also is credited with devising another now-popular theory in the West: that ranchers have what amounts to a private-property right to graze on public range land. Thus, Mr. Hage and several other Western ranchers have sued the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, claiming that they suffered takings when the agencies tried to restrict grazing on public range, which in many areas has been scalped by years of overgrazing. In Mr. Hage's case, the Forest Service confiscated some of his cows because he repeatedly defied the agency's orders to stop grazing on public land that federal range experts considered ``trampled, compacted, gullied.'' For damage from regulators and elk, Mr. Hage seeks compensation of at least $28.4 million. mountains of concerns Then there is the case of the Summitville Mine in south- central Colorado. Mining practices there have created a heap of cyanide-laced mine wastes; the Superfund cleanup is expected to cost taxpayers at least $120 million. The Canadian company that operated the mine for its owners has declared bankruptcy and left the country. Now, the mine owners, Aztec Minerals Corp., Gray Eagle Mining Corp. and South Mountain Minerals Corp., have sued Colorado's governor and main environmental agencies. Their claim: Because regulators did as the companies wished and permitted mining that earned them substantial profits but polluted their property, their land has been devalued by regulatory action--a taking under the Colorado constitution. The mine owners also say their property values have been hurt because regulators' emergency cleanup of Summitville, undertaken to prevent further poisoning of their land, has closed down mining, possibly for good. ``Let me get this straight: It's a taking when you're allowed to mine, and a taking when you're prevented from mining?'' scoffs Roger Flynn, an environmental attorney with the Western Mining Action Project. Just so, says Tim Gablehouse, the mine owners' attorney: ``Government action and inaction have damaged the value of private property, and we have a constitutional right to compensation.'' Intangible Costs Colorado is one of many states considering local takings legislation modeled on the new congressional proposals, and indeed, it is at the state and local level, where planning commissions make numerous decisions on a daily basis, that such measures could really open the floodgates. For example, local governments often deny permission for landowners to subdivide lots or undertake high-density development, on the theory that approval would aggravate congestion or traffic. Yet such decisions often diminish land values by as much as one-third. Jennifer Moulton, Denver's planning director, predicts that takings legislation pending in the Colorado state legislature would mean ``a nightmare of dueling appraisers and dueling lawyers.'' The Colorado proposal says that any diminution of property values whatsoever requires compensation but leaves it to appraisers to determine how much. ``Property owners will have their appraisers, and we'll have ours, and we'll all go around and around and around,'' Ms. Moulton says. Texas Notions Other recent federal takings claims have featured coal companies alleging that they must be compensated because federal law requires them to pay money into a fund for miners stricken with black lung. And a company owned by Texas oil millionaire Clayton Williams has sued Wyoming wildlife agencies over limits and licensing requirements for hunting deer, elk and antelope. Mr. Williams's theory: He owns the wildlife on his 90,000-acre Wyoming hideaway, and state hunting restrictions are a taking of his private wildlife for which he must be compensated. Mr. Williams lost the first legal round in federal court, but he has appealed. Not all the recent federal cases deal with environmental matters. International House of Pancakes Inc. has claimed that modifications to restaurants required by a 1990 handicap-access law are a taking for which it should be paid. IHOP made the claim in defense of a lawsuit brought by Theodore Pinnock, a San Diego attorney with cerebral palsy who sued after he allegedly couldn't get his wheelchair through a narrow restroom door and had to crawl into the men's room. Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a lower court decision against IHOP's takings claim. But many lawyers say IHOP probably would have prevailed under some of the new takings theories being pushed in Congress. It is that kind of scenario that concerns people like Jerold S. Kayden, a Harvard University property-law scholar. In his view, the Republican takings bills would ``vastly expand'' the opportunities for claiming compensable takings-- and would likely trigger a blizzard of such claims that will force a cash-strapped government to choose between enforcing regulations in the public interest or paying huge sums to landowners. More fundamentally, the new takings proposals mark a drastic departure from how courts and policy makers have historically interpreted the Fifth Amendment's taking clause. In general, courts have allowed the government significant latitude to make regulations impinging upon private property in the interest of protecting public health and safety, building highways, limiting growth and the like, particularly when the regulation didn't wipe out all economic value of the private land. Narrow Rulings The Supreme Court twice in recent terms has taken up major takings claims; both times the court ruled narrowly in favor of landowners, strengthening private-property rights without fundamentally altering past property-law concepts. The court is currently hearing another potential landmark private- property case involving how far regulators can go to enforce the federal Endangered Species Act on private land. Mr. Kayden also posits another question: If property owners are going to be paid by the public when a regulation decreases property values, he asks, why shouldn't they have to repay the public when regulatory action--flood control, for example--enhances property values? Takings proponents, however, contend that the Republican bills aim merely to put common sense back in government's attitude about private property, and they have their own list of abuses that they believe shows the need for a radical change in the takings law. There is the case of a Washington man who was barred from cutting down a few had been discovered some five miles away. There is the South Carolina developer whose $1 million investment in residential property was totally wiped out by subsequent erosion-control rules, even though his lots were a football-field distance away from the beach. There are the various landowners who have been thrown in jail for dumping clean sand on slivers of their property that were classified as wetlands; in some cases, the ``wetlands'' had been dry for decades. Backers also accuse their critics of fear-mongering when they suggest the bills invite landowners to raid the environment and the national treasury. Critics ``have propounded the myth that private property and environmental protection are inconsistent,'' says Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and a House leader on property rights. The House takings proposal, for example, wouldn't apply to any activity that runs afoul of state nuisance laws; that, he and other supporters say, will prevent landowners from ``getting paid not to pollute.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Kevin Phillips has called the Contract With America a ``dubious mix of reforms, gimmicks and con jobs.'' I call it a ``friendly corporate take-over of the Congress'' because the new Republican leadership has been encouraging lobbyists to serve as de facto official staff in drafting and amending legislation. I am not being naive about the existence, or the value, of lobbyists. But with the carte blanche provided them by the Republican leadership, lobbyists can contaminate the legislative process. And they have. The headline in last Friday's New York Times said it all: Business Leaves the Lobby and Sits at Congress's Table. Time magazine says that the Republican leadership ``has attached its fortunes to private lobbyists, and is relying on their far-flung influence to pass its agenda.'' Newsweek says that lobbyists are actually writing the bills. And they have it exactly right. Corporate representatives, individually and through coalitions like the Thursday Group, have been writing whole bills and amendments, with no public review and often without hearings, to serve their clients' narrow interests. Little wonder that the Contract With America has been described as ``a triumph for business interests, who * * * find themselves a full partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional priorities.'' The arm-length relationship between lobbyist and legislator has been brazenly abandoned. The examples are stunning: A committee of lobbyists rewrites the Clean Water Act ``to satisfy industry goups like the Chemical Manufacturers Association.'' Lobbyists, working from a Capitol office, plot the strategy and drafting of bills on regulatory reform and risk assessment. A lobbyist for the Wholesale Distributors develops the strategy on the product liability bill from an office provided by Republicans. A former Republican congressman is allowed to sit on the committee dais during a hearing on matters affecting his current client. With all due respect, what is going on here? I frankly do not know what is more disturbing: that these abuses are occurring, or that the Republican leadership and membership appear unconcerned and unaware that these practices degrade the democratic process. The American people did not vote last year to turn the legislative process over to lobbyists to rewrite our health and safety laws, our environmental laws, and our tax laws for the benefit of their corporate employers. And the Congress cannot allow this abuse to continue. Today, I am introducing an amendment to the House rules to require full disclosure of the role of all nonpublic employees in the drafting of legislation, amendments, reports and other products of the legislative process. I note that Speaker Gingrich was questioned about the substantial role of lobbyists in drafting the Contract, and replied, ``As long as it's out in the open, I have no problem.'' My resolution assures that lobbyists' handiwork will be ``out in the open,'' and I think the integrity of the Congress requires that it be adopted without delay.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as Congress nears the end of the first 100 days, let us examine some of the choices the new Republican majority has made to find ways to reduce the Federal deficit. In January, the Republican majority passed its balanced budget amendment without explaining to the American citizens which Federal programs will be sacrificed for the sake of deficit control. The Republican's rescissions bill, however, provided a glimpse of the programs on the chopping block, those which provide summer jobs for our youth, those which provide housing for the elderly and poor, those which provide community service volunteer placements in our inner cities, and those which provide healthy lunches for our schoolchildren. This week, Republicans would widen the gap between the rich and the middle-class by passing a healthy tax break for the wealthiest members of society. Of course, reducing our $4 trillion deficit is a responsibility for all Americans. However, if the average American thinks that everyone is equally sharing the burden of balancing the budget, it's time for a wake-up call. While many Americans will have to learn to do more with less and while many worthwhile Federal programs are facing the Republican firing squad, some industries have been granted clemency from deficit reduction efforts. The mining, grazing, timber and agricultural industries, which use Federal mineral resources and operate on public lands, continue to shamelessly receive billions of taxpayer dollars in Federal subsidies each year, and Republicans plan to do nothing to ensure Americans a better return for their resources. I'd like to submit for the Record and urge my colleagues to read a March 27 op ed by Mr. Jim Gogek that highlights some of the circumstances under which public resource industries continue to receive Federal handouts. In his San Diego Union-Tribune editorial, Mr. Gogek describes some of the egregious Federal policies that pad the pockets of natural resource development companies with billions of dollars each year. Understandably, the taxpayers are outraged by these massive handouts to multimillion dollar industries and are calling for an end to corporate welfare, but most Republicans appear indifferent to their demands. How much longer will the taxpayer have to watch the new majority in Congress cut valuable programs in order to pay for timber sales in our national forests that lose money? How much longer will large mining companies be able to extract gold and silver from our public lands for only $2.50 an acre? How much more money in subsidized irrigation must we give to huge agribusinesses for surplus crops? How much longer will we allow the annual giveaway of hundreds of millions of dollars to ranchers in the forms of cheap grazing leases and free livestock feed? How much longer must we all tighten our belts so that these industries, many of which are not even controlled by American citizens, may continue to grow rich from our tax dollars? In February 1995, I introduced the Public Resources Deficit Reduction Act, legislation which will recover more than $3 billion a year lost through these unreasonable Federal subsidies. I am pleased that 44 other Members, from both sides of the aisle, have joined me as co- sponsors of this legislation which will end this corporate welfare. As Congress continues to work toward increasing fiscal accountability and boosting returns to the Treasury, I urge my colleagues to consider joining us in our efforts to achieve fair-market value for the use of the public's resources. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 27, 1995] Big Agriculture Also Drains the Federal Till (By Jim Gogek) My Republican colleagues promise that House GOP members will soon begin taking ``corporate welfare''--now that they have cut funding for such social programs as job training, drug courts, vocational education, summer jobs for kids, housing for the poor and elderly and food subsidies for low-income women, infants and children. San Diego's freshman Republican, Rep. Brian Bilbray, was here recently and made the same promise: Subsidies are next on the block. However, he admitted that it might be a tough battle cutting some agriculture-related items, such as the $500 million ethanol subsidy that goes mostly to one company in Illinois. Big Ag greases the skids in Washington as well as anybody. The constituency favoring corporate subsidies has a lot more money for greasing than does the poor people's constituency. So don't hold your breath. Here in California, federal subsidies are themselves a cash crop. Central Valley agriculture floats on the federal dole. Timber, mining and ranching operations also belly up to the trough. These are the same folks, by the way, who vehemently oppose any government regulation on their land. But they have no problem accepting a government handout. Let's take a look at some of California's natural resource subsidies, starting with agriculture: The Central Valley Project, a huge federal project that provides water to farmers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys, has cost taxpayers between $34 billion and $70 billion since passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of the nearly $1 billion spent just to construct its irrigation facilities, only about $50 million has been paid back by users. Central Valley Project water districts pay a fraction of the full cost of water. According to a 1991 federal study, Westlands Water District paid $8 per acre-foot of water whose full cost was actually about $46 per acre-foot. Some federally subsidized water goes to irrigate surplus crops, which receive an agriculture subsidy. A federal study in 1986 found that California crops receiving subsidized water were also getting nearly $500 million in crop subsidies. One of the nation's largest corporate farms, J.G. Boswell Co., tills about 192,000 acres in the Central Valley that are irrigated with federally subsidized water. Farmers receiving federally subsidized water are negotiating contracts to sell that water to cities like San Diego--at market prices. Besides water and crop subsidies, most Central Valley farms benefit from subsidized power from government-built hydroelectric dams to pump subsidized water to their fields. Some farms also receive millions to help market products overseas. Over the last decade, $1.3 billion in agriculture subsidy checks were mailed, not to rural areas but to major cities and their suburbs, where corporate farms and absentee farmers have their offices. San Diego received $11.8 million, Los Angeles $10.8 million and San Francisco $13.9 million. Sacramento received $102 million. A corporation based in Rancho Bernardo got almost $1 million for a farm in Montana. Those are only some of the agricultural subsidies in California alone. Imagine the cumulative sum we pay for the whole nation. Then there are subsidies for grazing, mining and timber. Here's a few goodies: The National Forest Service alone incurred $557 million in net losses in 1993 in timber sales, grazing leases and mining subsidies. A 120-year-old mining law doesn't require royalties based on the value of metal ores taken from federal land. The only payment for ownership of a claim is a fee of between $2.50 to $5 an acre. A mining company holds a claim to a huge platinum strike in national forests in Montana estimated to be worth $32 billion. The federal government will receive at most about $10,000 for patenting the claims and acreage fees. Ranchers pay $1.86 a month per animal unit, which equals one cow and calf or four sheep, to graze on public land. The fee on private property is $10 a month. Federal grazing leaseholders are allowed to sublease their land--at a substantial profit. Many leaseholders are huge corporate ranchers. One rancher in California leases 5 million subsidized acres in California, Nevada and Wyoming. In California alone, the private use of publicly owned timber, grazing and mineral resources on national forest property resulted in a $34 million net loss for taxpayers in 1993. Not all public subsidies to business are bad. Some, such as certain research subsidies for medicine and science, return much greater social benefits than the original cash outlay could buy. But providing millions of dollars to wealthy corporate farms? Giving away billions in valuable minerals and timber on public land? And perhaps worst of all, subsidizing the destruction of our forests, wilderness, grasslands and fisheries? What do you call a public policy that does all that while at the same time slashes funds for summer jobs for kids? I can think of several words, but this is a family newspaper.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, while the House has been rushing to cut child care, school lunches, and a host of other programs for poor people, the Bureau of Reclamation has been quietly writing the last chapter of new rules that will help eliminate one of the most abused subsidy programs in government. If you want to hunt down welfare cheats, look to California's Central Valley, where the Federal Government doles out millions of taxpayer dollars each year in the form of illegal water subsidies to a few selected owners of corporate farm operations. The water subsidy abuses have for years been a huge embarrassment of Presidents of both political parties. But the Clinton administration has published new regulations that will once and for all close the loopholes in the Federal Water Program. The San Diego Union last week published an insightful description of this resource ripoff. I urge my colleagues to closely read the following editorial. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 29, 1995] Redistribute State's Water large corporate farms should not be subsidized The future of San Diego County, and all of Southern California, depends on water. In average years, we can supply only 5 percent to 10 percent of our own needs. We have to import the rest from Northern California and the Colorado River. Teh first thing businesses must know before they can operate in San Diego is whether they will have a guaranteed water supply in the future. Without that, little else matters. As San Diego continues to grow, and as our economic future increasingly depends on attracting new business or expanding existing ones, a guaranteed water supply will become more important than ever. California has plenty of water for San Diego and everybody else, but for decades it has been locked up in the Central Valley. Agriculture uses about 80 percent of all the water delivered in California, and Central Valley agriculture accounts for most of that. In the Central Valley, most farmers get water subsidized by taxpayers. Some pay as little as $10 to $20 per acre-foot. Contrast that with farmers in San Diego County, who pay the same retail rate as the city--$550 to $700 per acre-foot. The artificially low water rates in the Central Valley, locked in by contracts as long as 40 years, help explain why so much of the state's water never gets south of the Tehachapi Mountains. At such cheap prices, there is no incentive for farmers to conserve. But there is plenty of incentive to waste water by farming marginal land and growing water-intensive crops in a virtual desert. In recent years, the Central Valley's grip on the state's water supply has begun to loosen. In 1992, President Bush signed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which for the first time allowed Central Valley farmers to sell their water to cities. Now, the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation is moving to undo a decades-old inequity that has allowed huge corporate farms to skirt acreage limits for subsidized water. If the feds are successful, Central Valley farmers will have even more impetus to sell water to cities like San Diego. Federally subsidized water was only supposed to be for small, family farms. Up until 1982, the limit was 160 acres, although it was almost universally ignored. Then it was raised to 960 acres, but huge farms of thousands of acres continued receiving taxpayer-subsidized water by simply dividing their land into 960-acre trusts in the names of family members. One of the nation's largest corporate farms, J.G. Boswell, sold its acreage to its employees' trust fund. It was all done on paper; nothing changed on the ground. The Bureau of Reclamation, which for years winked at such practices, now intends to crack down on them. Central Valley farmers will fight back with their substantial political clout. But the Bureau of Reclamation should hang tough. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing huge corporate farms. But there also must be a free-market redistribution of water resources in California. California's cities are the industrial and commercial engines that drive the state's economy. To survive and prosper, San Diego and other cities need more Central Valley water. Eliminating taxpayer subsidies for huge corporate farms would free up water for cities. Federal officials should strictly enforce the 960-acre limit for subsidized water.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this past Friday the gentlewoman from San Francisco, CA [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentlewoman from the Palo Alto Valley south of San Francisco, CA [Ms. Eshoo] and myself held a hearing to listen to both school administrators, and parents and young people who are attending our university system, private university system, our public university system, the California State University system, and our community colleges, and who were doing so because of the availability of student loans and the interest subsidy that we provide on those student loans while young people are attending school and for a 6-month period after they graduate from school or cease to attend school before they start paying back those school loans. What we heard was a rather remarkable set of stories from young people and their parents, some young people on their own and some accompanied by their parents, telling us what their families are doing, are prepared to do and have done in the past to try and secure the opportunity of higher education, of a college education and degree, for their young people. They have made personal sacrifices in trying to obtain savings so that they can provide for their children. Many of them have refinanced their houses, gone into the workplace, worked extra hours, and yet still they do not have sufficient money to attend the State university system or the UC system, or our private universities, and, as a result of that, they have used the student loans that are made a part of the fabric of American society because of the Federal student loan program. Many of those students have also used the campus-based programs, work study programs, to provide additional moneys, and what we heard was the kind of sacrifices that hard-working American families of modest means in most instances are prepared to make so that their children will have, in some cases, a better education than their parents, that education so that they can participate to the fullest possible extent in American society, and certainly in the American economic system, and yet what we see in the illustrative list of cuts being proposed by the Republicans is what could cost California some $266 million in student aid that otherwise would be flowing to those students. Mr. Speaker, what we heard from the people testifying was in some instances this would mean that they could no longer continue school. Others would have to reduce the number of classes they take and try to increase the number of hours that they are already working today, which means they would have to be in school for a longer period of time and then borrow more money because they were in school for an extra semester or an extra quarter to achieve their degree. We heard from such individuals as May Wu who was at Stanford Law School. She said, After I graduate, my monthly payments for school loans alone will be approximately $1,000 . . . it would have been substantially higher, and therefore beyond my reach, if not for the availability of federally-subsidized low-interest loans. Michael Rodriguez told us, as he filled out his application, he never knew that student loans existed. He was a 9-year veteran of the Marine Corps, and somebody told him while he was in Kuwait, while he was fighting in Desert Storm, that he filled out his application in the foxhole, and he says, I give thanks every day that programs like financial aid exist for students like myself . . . Financial aid has become more important now than ever before as we face proposed [State] cuts in education. For me, financial aid has allowed me to achieve my goals, for which I am thankful. Now, with one semester left before I graduate, I work with high school students so that they might be able to have chances that were afforded to me through the help of financial aid. He is now telling other young people how they might secure a college education. The parent of Michael Garibaldi, Ronelle Garibaldi, talked about what this meant to her family, how she and her husband sat around the table and tried to work out the finances so that their son could continue in school. She said, We hold our breath until the envelope comes with Michael's award package and don't start breathing again until we've sat down with paper and pencil to once again determine if he can return in the fall. I am often told I have a passion for financial aid. While that is true, it goes much deeper than that. Actually, I am a mother with a passion for opportunity for a higher education for my children, as well as all children. That is what is at risk with the proposals by the Republicans to slash student loans so they can give tax breaks to people earning over $100,000 who do not necessarily need it and certainly give no indication that they want it when they understand this is the kind of penalty that is paid by America's young people and families.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the whole point of the provision of the Ways and Means bill was to cancel these business deals, to cancel them retroactively, and Rupert Murdoch was able to hold on to his deal, and nobody else was, and those are the facts. Those may not be the facts the gentleman from Texas likes, but those are the facts.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Since Mr. Murdoch is as successful as he is, when you consider all of the things that he has denied knowledge of that affect his business interests, over the last 100 days, but yet somehow he has tremendous success, and apparently it just falls on him.

Mr. MILLER of California. In the House and the Senate. I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to associate myself with her remarks. This is simply an outrageous misuse of the public trust to have this item slipped into a conference committee with no notification of the House Members that this matter was in the conference bill, in fact, the appearance of deliberately keeping it from the House Members so this could be voice-voted on the floor last week when Members were concerned with the deductibility of the health care insurance for the self- employed, and then to find out that what we have in here is the most special of special deals for one person when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and others strenuously objected to this kind of matter being brought forward, turned down amendments to try to make some rules that would apply to everybody across the board, now find out the 17 or 18 other similar deals were turned down, but the one for Rupert Murdoch, the one involving the Speaker, was now somehow felt into this legislation. We started out the 100 days with a book contract with Rupert Murdoch. Now we are ending it with all of the speculation about what that meant, and now, of course, the speculation is no longer speculation. Now we have the concrete treatment of Mr. Murdoch differently than anyone else in the United States at the behest of the leadership----

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I would like to say the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] makes a very important point. I think the people in this country have got to begin to focus on where is the money coming from to pay for this tax bill. The money is coming from the people who need it the most in this country. We saw that in terms of the nutrition programs, where $7 billion was taken out of nutrition for children, for the tax cut. We saw $9 billion out of the interest subsidy that allows young people to stay in school and not start paying interest on those loans until they have the degree that allows them to get the job, almost $20 billion in total out of student loans. We also know that the money that they are talking about taking and giving back to the seniors was money that is now supporting the Medicare system. We know that there are additional cuts for Medicare. This is one of the greatest transferences of wealth from middle-income families, from working families, from families striving and sacrificing before they ever take a student loan to pay for the education of their children. To take money from these people and to transfer it to high- income individuals, most of whom when you talk to them they say if that is how it is done, then do not bother. People making over $200,000, over $150,000, sure, they would like the money. But they say if that is the price, is that kids are not going to be able to go to school or not get a school lunch or these kinds of programs, they say I do not need it, put it on the deficit, lower interest rates, or leave it with the kids so they can get an education. But what we see is all of this camouflage about middle-income people when, in fact, we see that we had a whole group of companies that never paid taxes up until 1988, and now they are going to relieve those companies of the alternative minimum tax. They paying any taxes, not paying their fair share. They are going to give capital gains to the highest-income people in the country, as you point out, middle-income people with capital gains, a very slight amount. The point is that is why they do not want the cap is that this is a massive transfer from moneys that help people in this country achieve advancement and status and education and training to participate in the American economic system. And they are gathering up all of this money and they are going to transfer it this next week into the tax bill to go to high-income people.

Mr. MILLER of California. Those are priorities. I mean, we have to, we are not wealthy enough. We are going to offer an incentive program for education, recognizing that families are struggling. We heard testimony this last Friday out in San Francisco, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congresswoman Pelosi and myself, about families who were struggling far beyond the student loan debt. They have refinanced their houses. They have done everything they can. So we are going to offer--the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, is going to offer, allow them the deductibility of those education costs and those training costs for people who are going back to school so they can keep their jobs, allow them the deductibility on student loans, allow them to set up an educational IRA so they can start saving if they have very young children. But we have enough money to do that, but we do not have enough money to do that and then to give away money to people who essentially right now do not need this kind of assistance because they are making very high incomes, in the top 1, 2, 3 percent of all the people in the country.

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is quite correct. To borrow money, to give a $500 credit to somebody making $150,000 to $200,000, you ought to see what the children are going to have to make to pay that money back over the next 25 years because we borrowed it from the Treasury now. If we were flush, if we had a big stack of money in front of us and we had all of our bills paid, fine, then give a dividend to the shareholders of America, give a dividend to the taxpayers, let them participate. But I assume when you go to your town hall meetings you are hearing what I am hearing. People are saying how can you borrow money to give a tax cut when you have the deficit? Pay down the deficit. Because what do they remember? They remember after the President made those cuts, those $500 billion, that interest rates went down. Their children for the first time were able to buy a house. They were able to refinance their houses from the high interest rates of the 1980's and saw the economy moving. What were they presented with this last week? The home sales again are in the doldrums. The inventory is backing up. People cannot afford to enter the home market again as first-time buyers. That would be the benefit of the deficit reduction. But they have chosen to provide, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars that they simply cannot pay for in any other way rather than just ravaging programs like student loans and child nutrition and a whole host of programs that help families provide a better life for their children, far in excess of the tax credit for the very wealthy.

Mr. MILLER of California. Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. MILLER of California. If I could just say, Mr. Speaker, every day we start out the House of Representatives with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of this House and our guests in the gallery, they pledge allegiance to the United States of America. They do not pledge it until their taxes are too high, or until they want to save money. They pledge allegiance to the United States of America through thick and thin, through good and bad. They do not pledge it until their kid does not get into college. They do not pledge allegiance to the United States until their son or daughter gets drafted into the Army to fight an unpopular war. They pledge allegiance to the United States day in and day out. Now we have a handful of billionaires that, for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes, are willing to renounce their American citizenship, and we are going to say ``Give them the congressional stamp of approval.'' It is absolutely outrageous that we would do that, considering the other patriotic Americans that have lost their lives pledging allegiance to the United States of America, that have lost their homes pledging allegiance, that have lost their children in wars, that have lost their spouses and their loved ones in wars in this country. Now a handful of people decide that it is no longer to their advantage to pledge allegiance to the United States. They are going to leave the country for the sole purpose, this is the only way this can happen, for the sole purposes of avoiding taxation on their estates. It is an outrage.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, that was the point the gentleman just made. While there was a great deal of controversy in the Committee on Ways and Means and on this floor about the fairness and extent to which the Tax Code should be used to sell these communications assets, it was clearly the intent of the Republicans to get rid of all of them, and when amendments were offered to make them fairer, to reduce the cost to the taxpayer, and to scrutinize them more than they have in the past, that was rejected, because all of these had to be killed. Apparently when they got to conference committee, they went over an inventory of the impact of this amendment, that this would have. They found there were 17 or 18 or 19 deals that were in the works, that were in stages of completion, and would benefit from this tax provision, the sale of communications assets. They decided to kill them all until they got to one, until they got to the one that represented Rupert Murdoch. I think that is what is important to understand here. As the gentleman pointed out, this 100 days started with Rupert Murdoch making a very unusual gesture. That is, a book deal to the Speaker of the House that originally was going to pay him a $4 million advance. The Speaker, to his credit, later turned that down, after the light of day was shown on that and people recognized the immediate conflict of interest. The suggestion was that Mr. Murdoch really had no business of an unusual nature before this Congress, that there was no conflict of interest, and the Speaker had no ability to influence. Now we move those statements forward 87 days, and what do we find out? That Mr. Murdoch had specific legislation and matters before this Congress, it was brought to the attention of the Speaker, and the Speaker opened the gate for it to happen, because it was only through his willingness to allow this to happen, and apparently some negotiations taking place in the back room, that this one provision, 1 out of 17, was allowed to go forward.

Mr. MILLER of California. It is not only the appearance now, today, afterward. It is what was put forth to the Members of this House. Members of this House thought they were voting on a good bill to allow for the deductibility of 25 percent of the health costs for individuals, for self-employed individuals, in this country, and yet what do they find out? That that bill was now gamed by the Speaker, for the interests of Mr. Murdoch, by the Senate, for the specific purposes of providing camouflage, so under the cover, without anyone knowing this, this provision could be written into law, and Mr. Murdoch could gain apparently what is around $63 million of benefit. The tragedy is that that $63 million now comes out of the very hide of the deductibility, as you pointed out, between this and the billionaires' tax break that was in that bill, which we did know about and we did object to, and unfortunately, we could not get the Republicans on the other side to agree to, these people maybe could be allowed a deductibility of 30 percent of their health care costs, or 35 percent, for the billions of dollars that was put into this legislation, all under the guise that we are doing something nice for the self-employed, which everybody in the House agreed with. But they gamed that with the secret deal here for Mr. Murdoch, and one clearly has a very direct connection to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.