George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think he makes a very important point. This is a burden that these States are saddled with through no actions of their own or fault of their own, and now what we are doing is when they had access to money under the Berman amendment, what we are now suggesting is that the States have to jump over an unrelated hurdle to get access to the money. The point is the problem that the States have had is that they are saddled with the burden day in and day out through no choice of their own, and yet if they do not change their laws they cannot get access to the money. I appreciate the gentleman has a theoretical formula worked out about what pool of money States will go to and whether that money will be there. It is not an entitlement, so we do not know that it will be there at the end of this budget process. But the fact is the burden goes on in any case, and that is what the States are complaining about. So now the gentleman is erecting these hurdles, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they have thousands of beds taken up with illegals through a failure of Federal policy.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the clouds of scandal once again are gathering above the House of Representatives. The Wall Street Journal has been running daily accounts of the special favors that the contributors of GOPAC and the contributors to the Progress and Freedom Foundation that are controlled by the Speaker have sought and received. According to the Wall Street Journal, 10 percent of the contributors to the Progress and Freedom Foundation are makers of drugs and medical devices, whom we now learn are the same people who have sought special legislation and are now seeking to gut the Food and Drug Administration. What we as Members of the House are witnessing is very strong suggestion that the House of Representatives is somehow for sale. This cannot be allowed to stand. We as Members deserve better, and the people of this Nation deserve better. It is imperative that the House Committee on Ethics and its chair, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Nancy Johnson, move to appoint outside counsel. Given the ramifications of these stories and the fact that GOPAC and the Progress and Freedom Foundation are controlled by the Speaker, the committee has no other choice. It owes it to the people of this Nation to do so, and I urge my colleagues to call upon the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to appoint outside counsel.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later in this session we will be this country, and it is clearly the goal of both the Republicans and the Democrats to make sure that people move from welfare into the American economic system and that those individuals move into that economic system in the hopes of achieving economic self-sufficiency. It is clearly what the President has announced as he has discussed welfare reform and as he has discussed the minimum wage. The minimum wage becomes key to that effort of moving people from welfare, from public assistance, from dependency, to economic self- sufficiency. We must make it clear that in this country those individuals that choose to go to work, those individuals that later we will seek to require to go to work, that they are making a logical economic choice for them and for their families. The key to doing that is making sure that the minimum wage will boost people above the poverty level in this country; that when they make a decision to get up every morning and go to work and go to work all day long, that in fact when they come home to their families and their children, they will know they succeeded in lifting their family out of poverty. If we do not do that it is very difficult to rationalize to those individuals why in fact they should go to work. The $4.25 minimum wage that we have today does not do that for individuals, and it clearly does not do that for individuals who are working on behalf of themselves and their families. What we see today is more children under the age of 6 are living in poverty than at any time in recent history, and 58 percent of those children are living in families where individuals go to work every day. They go to work on a part-time or full-time basis but they do not receive, they do not receive wages sufficient to keep their family above the poverty line. We have got to make sure that that no longer is true. And that is why the increase in the minimum wage is so terribly important. Clearly, work must pay, and that is the signal that we must send in this country; that you go to work, it is worth your while to go to work to do that job and to provide for your family. That simply is not true. The increase in the minimum wage that the President has asked us to support, 45 cents this year and 45 cents next year, will raise an individual above the poverty line. It unfortunately still does not address an individual that is working on behalf of a spouse and/or children in that family. But we have got to make that effort. This is the minimum that we can do on the minimum wage. Historically, the increase in the minimum wage has had very, very substantial bipartisan support. When we addressed this exact same increase, 45 cents one year and 45 cents the next year, when it was presented to us by President Bush it was passed overwhelmingly on a partisan basis; 383 Members in this House voted for it, 135 Democrats voted for it, crystallizing again that President Bush had the same goal that President Clinton did, and that is to make work pay, to get people to go to work and to be able to provide for their families. I think it is unfortunate that we now see the Republican majority leader say to this country that he will oppose the minimum wage with every fiber in his body, that he will deny these individuals who are seeking to provide for their family the ability to go to work and come home above the poverty line. I think it is unfortunate when we see the people of this House suggest that we cannot raise the minimum wage because we have to compete with wages in Mexico. I think we should have told the people of this country that that was the conditions on the passing of NAFTA, and that now Americans' wages are going to be tied to the wages of Mexico. Is that the message we have for people that go to work in this country every day, that you can live at the standard of living provided people in Mexico? That simply cannot be. That simply cannot be. That cannot be the underpinnings of the American system of economics. It cannot be the underpinning of the free enterprise system, and it cannot be the underpinning for support for families in this country. We have got to understand that Americans who go to work are entitled to participate in the American standard of living on behalf of themselves and for their families. I am delighted to see that apparently the support for the minimum wage is not complete across the Republican spectrum, because this weekend we found out Senator Dole is not opposed to it. The question is only what we will have to pay to achieve the minimum wage, and the indications are that if you cut the capital gains tax, where 75 percent of the benefit goes to 10 percent of the population, then and only then are the Republicans prepared to try to help the millions of American families who go to work every day yet remain in poverty.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve Board yesterday did a terrible disservice to working Americans when for the seventh time in a year it raised interest rates. American homeowners will now get $15 billion of additional mortgage costs charged against them because of this increase. Half of the homeowners in America will get an envelope shortly from their lending institution telling them that their monthly mortgage rate has gone up because of these actions by the Federal Reserve. Those people shopping for a car this weekend will find the cost of financing that automobile has gone up because of the Federal Reserve. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and others who work in the homebuilding industry and the construction industry will find it harder to find work throughout the year because the cost of homebuilding has gone up, the cost of construction has gone up, and the cost of small business expansion has gone up because of these actions taken in secret by the Federal Reserve. American workers deserve better and the Federal Reserve ought to recognize that the wages of American workers are under pressure from workers around the world, and they ought to understand that inflation is different today than it was yesterday.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I simply rise to commend the Committee on Rules for passing out an open rule and urge support of the rule. I think this is really the test of an open rule, and that is when we have tough issues. We saw an open rule under unfunded mandates. Yes, there were many amendments, but there were many issues drawn and Members got a chance to express themselves and cross-examine Members on both sides of the aisle. I hope we do that again as on unfunded mandates, and I want to compliment the Committee on Rules for preserving this debate. Next to our voting card our constituents give us, the right of free debate and the ability to cross-examine one another on issues is one of the most important privileges we have in this House. We should not get too caught up in the 100 days. Otherwise, the 100 days could end up looking like George Bush's golf game. He played really fast, but it was not really a good game. I hope we can preserve open rules so we have free and open debate that is subject to cross-examination on the basic ideas about the direction of this Government. Again I want to thank the Committee on Rules on preserving an open rule on this measure.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, but I want to raise a couple of points with respect to the proposed land exchange. The EIS in this land exchange admits that no appraisals were prepared. Instead, a statement of value was prepared to assess the relative values of the interests proposed in the exchange. Since no appraisals were done, we have to rely on the assurances of the involved party that this is a good exchange, and we have no specific criteria on which to judge it. Mr. Chairman, I raise this point of order not about this legislation, because this legislation has gone through the committee and was the subject of a lot of deliberations last year, and in fact then should have been passed last year. I raise this point of view on this matter to say that I think that having now passed the balanced budget amendment, that we must be more conscientious, both in the committee and on the floor of the House, in dealing with exchanges and with transfers and gifts of public property. What we used to consider as a regular order around here may no longer be able to be the regular order, since we must now make sure that the taxpayers and the Government get all the moneys that they can in terms of the transfers of these properties with respect to asking for their market value, so those references can be used to help balance the budget. I will be raising this issue in the committee on other legislation that is scheduled to come before this House, and will raise it in the House in the event that we are not successful in the committee. Mr. Chairman, I think that this exchange, and although this is the remnant of a previous exchange, this exchange points out some of the serious potential problems that can arise from exchanges in general. Those problems are especially acute to Alaska, since both ANESCA and ANILCA allow an equal exchange upon the finding of the Secretary that the exchanges are in the public interest. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is the way we believe the Government business should have been done in the past, but it raises concerns about whether or not we can continue to do that in the future, given the constraints we are going to have around here in trying to meet our obligations under the balanced budget amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the grandfather of this exchange, the previous exchange which we are cleaning up after in this legislation, they found it was in fact not in the Government interest, according to GAO, and GAO recommended that the Congress direct the Secretary to develop and issue written procedures on land exchanges. At a minimum, procedures should require preparations of EIS's and EA's when appropriate, full public review, and a process for determining whether an exchange is in fact in the public interest, and not just a simple statement by the Secretary of the Interior that it is in fact in the public interest. Establishment of disclosure and fair market value on lands and interests should be exchanged. Land exchanges are not a panacea for solving all the problems. Very often they are very complex agreements that require careful review and analysis. The Committee on Resources has dealt with many land exchanges over the years which have involved considerable work by the committee, and also have had to be rewritten, those exchanges, or modified to assure they were in fact in the public interest. Instead of dealing with land exchanges on an ad hoc basis, we should have written and qualitative criteria to assess the public value of such exchanges. I raise the point again not with respect to this legislation, but in terms committee. Mr. Chairman, I have raised these in the past from time to time, but I think we have to be much more diligent in that effort now, given the fiscal constraints we are going to have in the budgetary considerations of exchanges and transfers and gifts of public assets and resources, whether it is to private parties or to other units of government within the United States. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Let us go back to those days of yesteryear when you wanted to make sure your rights and the right of the public to participate in these hearings was protected. Could the gentleman clarify that?

Mr. MILLER of California. I am seeking clarification. I appreciate it. This may save time on Monday. But as I read the language, I think the characterization by the gentleman from Michigan may be correct, because it says you have 1 week, but it says then the chairman determines if there is good cause to begin sooner. That collapses the 7-day protection. I know it seems a long time since you guys were in the minority, but----

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

Mr. MILLER of California. On that point, a point of clarification. You mentioned that the rule, if a vote is called on the rule, then I assume business would be postponed until that vote on the rule can be taken, and then go forward with the bill.

Mr. MILLER of California. If a vote is asked for on the rule, then business will cease at that point, and you will have to come in after 5 o'clock to vote on the rule and then proceed on the bill.

Mr. MILLER of California. I need the right ruling here.

Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. If I could address a question, I do not know which of the parties, chairman of the Committee on Rules or the majority leader, but as I understand, because this is the first time I have seen this legislation, the bill you will be bringing to the floor, under the current system of the rules require that the committee give notice of a hearing within 7 days.

Mr. MILLER of California. That has been worked out traditionally under previous practices, Mr. Young and myself, we talked about it and it would be fine. But it was about whether or not a hearing would be held, and 7-days' notice. As I understand this legislation, this will collapse the 7-day timeframe from 7, that is what we need to know, from 7 to 2; is that what it is?

Mr. MILLER of California. So that is what I need. What you are saying is that House Resolution 43 would simply clarify that it is the prerogative of the Chair with consultation?

Mr. MILLER of California. To call the hearing, but the 7-day protection for the minority continues, as it does under current rules? Is that correct?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the American public has watched for the last 3 or 4 days the prosecution and the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial. What was one of the fundamental tenets in that trial that they are arguing about? The ability to be put on notice, the ability to be put on notice so that you could respond, so that you would understand the subject matter, the witnesses and the people that are to be drawn. What this rule says is no, that the tools all belong to the majority here, they will arbitrarily decide a day or two, and they will collapse what has been a historical protection. There is only one way to read: ``If the chairman of the committee determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner.'' If you want to say if the committee determines there is good cause, have a vote in the committee, majority. You ought not to be afraid of doing the public's business in front of the public.

Mr. MILLER of California. I appreciate it. And I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I appreciate it that when we try to exercise the rights of the minority, and I think I see my chairman on the floor, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. In the running of the Committee on Natural Resources, the minority was constantly protected as to witnesses, as to time, and amendments. We sat there late at night. We sat there days on end, because I believe in that process, and I brought an open rule to this floor every time I brought a bill, and as many Members like to remind me from time to time, they spent almost 30 hours on this floor, 8 or 9, 10 days on the California Desert. That is because no matter how contentious and no matter the fact that I had the votes on the matter, we decided we would give everybody a right. That was the same process that was followed in the committee. But now all of a sudden what we see is a complete collapsing, a complete collapsing of not only the rights of the minority in this House, and that is interesting, and that is troublesome, and that is real problems for us. We will deal with that. But we also see a complete collapsing of the right of the public to participate, to know about, to anticipate, and to comment upon hearings that can be scheduled, because under this bill, the chairman can unilaterally decide that a hearing will be held in 1 day or in 2 days. This is a House that is being run under a Speaker who is proud of the fact that he says it is the most open. It is not turning out to be that. This is a Speaker that is proud that we are on the Internet. But yet you cannot get your witnesses to the hearing. You cannot prepare the members of your committee. You have no notification of hearing. This is a continuation of a collapse of minority rights that we have seen. I feel I am justified to speak on this, because it never ever happed in my committee in all of the years that I was in control of it and in all of the years that my predecessor, Chairman Udall. Why? Because we had respect for minority rights, and I used to talk to Members about the difficulty of serving on the minority. But here we are. Let us understand in the Committee on Natural Resources yesterday, witnesses were arbitrarily cut off. Some were given 5 minutes. Some were given 3 minutes. Nobody told them what time. They just arbitrarily got tired of the testimony. They cut people off. Committees have adjourned arbitrarily because it was 6 o'clock. On the issues of constitutionality, committees were told they could not continue to offer amendments, because the chairman was tired in the committee; on unfunded mandates. These are fundamental principles that concern the American public. Yet what we see is a continuation. I realize power is heady. I realize power is corrupting of principles. But here we are starting to see it, ladies and gentlemen. What you are starting to see is they do not want the open debate. We can debate this on Monday. We are trying to determine what it is we will be debating on Monday so we can prepare our arguments. That is fundamental. And the gentleman knows that. You know, he sat on the Committee on Education and Labor, and debate went on late into the night, because the right of Members to offer amendments from either party was guaranteed. We all knew that it caused difficulties with floor schedule, but Members had amendments, even if they knew they were going to lose on a straight party-line vote; they wanted their voices to be heard. That is what this institution, that is what this Constitution is about. But it goes far beyond the floor of this House or the committees of this House. It goes to our constituents. It goes to the right of the public to be heard, the right of the public to participate in these hearings and to comment upon them, and you cannot do that with 1-day notice arbitrarily given. That kind of advantage is corrupting of the openness principles of this institution, and I think we ought to understand, and I speak, I hope I speak, to those in the minority that you better understand that somewhere a line in the sand is going to have to be drawn on the right of you to protect your membership on these committees, your rights to participate on these committees, and the right of your constituents and others in this country to be heard. There is no need, there is no showing, there is absolutely no showing for the need to do this, because we have worked out committee hearing arrangements between majority and minority. One of the reasons you wanted to change it is because it has become accepted practice that we do it in consultation. But what we have not done, what we have not done is collapse the 7- day protection for the minority to be prepared for that hearing. You could be planning for a hearing as the chairman of the committee for months, announce it, and we would have 7 days. Under this proposal, if the chairman deems a reason to begin the hearing sooner, you can announce it in 2 days.

Mr. MILLER of California. That is a committee vote. changing that.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we passed a balanced budget amendment. Today I am introducing the Public Resources Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which will help us reach the goal of a balanced budget. This bill will take a first step toward eliminating the waste of public resources for private profit at the taxpayers' expense. As we consider options for reducing the deficit, this is a critical initiative that will bring in billions of dollars annually to the Treasury. In our necessary examination of Federal payments to all sectors of our society, corporate welfare programs must not be spared the budget axe. This bill will restore public trust and fiscal accountability in our natural resource programs. It will require the Federal Government to receive a fair-market return on all its natural resources. It will also authorize recovery of fees from natural resource program beneficiaries to cover the costs of program administration. Currently, public lands that belong to all Americans are managed for the benefit of a few special interests. The need for reform of these subsidy policies was highlighted last year in a report by the staff of the Natural Resources Committee, ``Taking from the Taxpayer: Public Subsidies for Natural Resource Development.'' That report documents the dizzying array of subsidies available to natural resource industries. It's time to ask businesses operating on our western public lands to stand on their own two feet, rather than on the shoulders of hardworking taxpayers. Recent polls show that the American people expect a fairmarket return for sales of their resources. This bill includes long-overdue reforms of mining, oil and gas leasing, logging, recreation, and grazing policies. It also eliminates the subsidies available to consumers of water and power provided by Federal projects. The reforms mandated here will begin us on the road toward eliminating the unwarranted the unwarranted overlapping subsidies received by these industries. Many of the initiatives included in this bill have been proposed in the past, and several have previously passed the House of Representatives. Together, they will save billions of dollars annually, while assuring the American people a fair return on their assets. Each year, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on taxpayer subsidies to natural resource industries. These expenditures are not included in the Federal budget process, and there is no oversight of the corporations and individuals who benefit from these policies. This bill will require the Federal Government to start accounting for these expenditures in the annual budget submission to Congress. Last year the House overwhelmingly approved legislation rewriting the outdated mining law of 1872, which currently allows companies to remove minerals for free and to purchase public land for as little as $2.50 per acre. This new bill follows last year's in calling for an 8 percent royalty rate on hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper. It also puts an end to ``patenting,'' which permits mining companies to buy public land at bargain basement prices. This provision will stop the continuing drain of billions of dollars under the current mining law; in May 1994 a Canadian company, American Barrick, paid a mere $10,000 for land in Nevada that will yield approximately $10 billion worth of gold. This bill includes a major overhaul of policies for concessions operating the national parks, which also passed the House last year. The current system of fees and licenses for park concessioners gives special benefits to these businesses, rather than ensuring that the taxpayer receives a fair return from these park uses. A 1994 report prepared by the staff of Senator William Cohen concluded, ``Each year, the Federal Government relinquishes the opportunity to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in rent and franchise fees from private firms who have the exclusive right to operate concessions on Federal lands.'' This bill will bring charges for park concessions into line with the value of the resources used. This legislation also requires that the Government charge fair-market rates for grazing permits, which currently lag well below rates charged on private and State lands. In addition to charging the going rate for Federal grazing leases, hundreds of millions of dollars in direct payments to ranchers for livestock feed will be halted. Furthermore, grazing fee rebates to local ranchers, which have been used in the past to sue and lobby the Government, will be retained instead in the Treasury Additionally, this legislation will reform Forest Service management of timber sales on public lands. The Government frequently sells timber at less than the cost required to administer the sale and build roads for timber companies. This bill will ensure a fair return for the taxpayer by forbidding these below-cost sales. It also will move all timber receipts on budget so that revenues go directly into the U.S. Treasury, rather than into unaccounted funds for local use. Irrigators using Federal water have benefited from multiple subsidies and now pay far below the fair-market cost for the water. In some cases, they pay a hundred times less per acre-foot than neighbors who purchase water from the State or from private entities. This bill will require that all new water contracts sell the water at market rates, and eliminate the use of federally subsidized water to irrigate surplus crops. This bill will also require that the value of the Federal subsidy in existing water contracts be included in the cap on Government agricultural payments. This legislation gives Members of Congress who profess concern for the deficit, for Federal spending, and for getting Government out of business the opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity on these issues. The array of proposals we have heard in the last weeks has not addressed the problem of corporate welfare. They don't want to deliver surplus commodities to school children, but they will give away the Nation's gold and silver to foreign corporations. They want to charge people to visit the U.S. Capitol, but they don't want to charge fair prices to special interests operating in national parks. They don't want to subsidize rent for poor working families, but they will subsidize the rent for cows on public lands. It is time for a review of all these programs. I am introducing this legislation today to start that review. Public Resources Deficit Reduction Act Section-by-Section Analysis Sec. 1. Short Title and Table of Contents. Title I--General Provisions Sec. 101. Fair Market Value for Resources Disposal.--This section requires that fair market value be recovered for disposal of federal resources, including minerals, timber, forage, water and hydropower. The requirement is to be phased in at the end of 5 years. The President may waive the requirement upon a finding that a waiver is in the national interest. Sec. 102. Fees from Program Beneficiaries.--This section authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to charge user fees covering the costs of administering federal programs. Further, the section requires immediate imposition of such a fee for oil and gas lease transfers. Sec. 103. Revenues from Sale, Lease, and Transfer of Assets.--This section requires that the annual budget submission from the President include an accounting of the subsidy involved in disposal of any federal assets. Title II--Revenue from Mining Claims Sec. 201. Definitions.--This section defines the terms ``locatable mineral,'' ``mineral activities,'' ``exploration,'' ``mining,'' ``beneficiation,'' ``processing,'' ``mining claim'' and ``Secretary'' for purposes of Title II. Sec. 202. Mining Claim Maintenance Requirements.--This section requires mining claim holders to pay an annual fee of $100 for maintenance of each claim. The claim may be waived by the Secretary of the Interior for those holding less than 10 claims. Sec. 203. Royalty.--This section requires payment of a royalty of 8% of gross income for production of hardrock minerals on federal lands. The section further provides for record-keeping and reporting, requires the collection of interest for underreporting, and authorizes the collection of penalties for underreporting. Sec. 204. Severance Tax.--This section establishes an 8% severance tax for hardrock minerals produced on nonfederal lands, including those lands already patented out of federal ownership. Sec. 205. Fund for Abandoned Locatable Minerals Mine Reclamation.--This section authorizes the establishment of a fund for reclamation of land and water affected by past mining activity. The section further requires that the royalties collected under section 203 and the severance tax collected under section 204 be credited to the fund. Sec. 206. Limitation on Patent Issuance.--This section prohibits further patenting of federal land for mining claims and millsites established after the date of introduction of this bill. Sec. 207. Purchasing Power Adjustment.--This section requires that fees imposed according to the Consumer Price Index. Sec. 208. Savings Clause.--This section provides that nothing in this act should be construed as modifying existing limitations on the application of the general mining laws. Sec. 209. Effective Date.--This section provides that Title II shall take effect one year from date of enactment of this act, except as otherwise provided in section 206. Title III--Helium Sec. 301. Amendment of Helium Act.--This section provides that all references within this title are to be considered references to the Helium Act. Sec. 302. Authority of Secretary.--This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to continue extraction and disposal of helium from public lands. In addition, the section requires the Secretary to cease production, refining and marketing, and requires disposal of equipment used for these purposes, 1 year after the date of enactment of this act. The section further authorizes the Secretary to impose fees to recover the full cost of providing services for storage, transportation, and withdrawal of helium. Sec. 303. Sale of Crude Helium.--This section requires that funds from sales of refined helium and extraction of helium on public lands be credited toward repayment of the federal investment in the helium reserve. Sec. 304. Elimination of Stockpile.--This section requires that excess helium in the federal helium stockpile be sold off, beginning by the year 2005 and ending by the year 2015. Sec. 305. Repeal of Authority to Borrow.--This section repeals the Secretary's authority to borrow under the Helium Act. Title VI--Use or Disposal of Federal Natural Resources Sec. 401. Annual Domestic Livestock Grazing Fee.--This section requires that the annual grazing fee for grazing leases on public lands be set at fair market value beginning in the 1996 grazing season. The section further requires that funds from federal receipts be used for restoration, enhancement, and management of federal lands. Sec. 402. Elimination of Below-Cost Timber Sales of Timber from National Forest System Lands.--This section requires that sales of timber from the National Forest System be based on a minimum bid that will cover all costs of the sale, including overhead. The section further requires that the cessation of below-cost timber sales be phased in over 5 years. Sec. 403. Timberland Suitability.--This section requires that, in developing land management plans for the National Forests, the Secretary of Agriculture take into account the economic suitability of lands for timber production, including in the ``timber base'' only lands upon which sales of timber will cover all costs of the sales. Sec. 404. Cost of Water Used to Produce Surplus Costs.-- This section requires that federal irrigation water from the Bureau of Reclamation that is used to grow surplus crops be paid for at the ``full cost'' rate set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982. Sec. 405. Reduction in Maximum Amount of Payments under Agricultural Assistance Programs to Reflect Receipt of Federal Irrigation Water.--This section requires that payment limits on agricultural price supports and crop disaster assistance include the value of the subsidized water an irrigator receives from the Bureau of Reclamation. Sec. 406. Off Budget Expenditures.--This section moves into the General Fund of the Treasury timber receipts formerly paid into the Knutson-Vandenburg fund, the brush disposal fund, the roads and trails fund and the timber salvage sale fund. Sec. 407 Deposit of Taylor Grazing Act Receipts in Treasury.--This section eliminates the authorization for payment out of the Treasury of a portion of grazing fee receipts. Sec. 408. Repeal of Livestock Feed Assistance Program.-- This section repeals the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to provide free livestock feed to ranchers. Sec. 409. Communication Permits.--This section requires that permits for the use of communications sites on public lands must be established at fair market value as of October 1, 1995. Sec. 410. Oil and Gas Rentals.--This section requires that oil and gas rental prices for leases on public lands be set at fair market value. Title V--National Park Concessions Sec. 501. Findings and Policy.--This section establishes Congressional findings and policy for this title. Sec. 502. Definitions.--This section defines the terms ``concessioner,'' ``concession contract,'' ``facilities,'' ``franchise fee,'' ``fund,'' ``park,'' ``proposal'' and ``Secretary'' for purposes of Title V. Sec. 503. Repeal of Concessions Policy Act of 1965.--This section repeals the Concessions Policy Act of 1965. This section further provides that existing contracts issued under that Act shall remain in force. Sec. 504. Concession Contracts and Other Authorizations.-- This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to award concessions contracts and authorizations for other visitor services in the National Parks as necessary and appropriate to accommodate park visitors. Sec. 505. Competitive Selection Process.--This section requires competitive bidding for concessions contracts, with selection based on price and other criteria to determine entity best qualified to provide services. This section further provides a limited preferential right of renewal for certain outfitting and guide contracts, and certain contracts with gross receipts under $500,000. Sec. 506. Franchise Fees.--This section authorizes the Secretary to establish minimum franchise fees at levels that will allow concessioners to realize a profit. Sec. 507. This section authorizes the establishment of a special account within the Treasury to receive payment of franchise fees.--This section further authorizes that in some cases a concessioner may maintain a separate Park Improvement Fund where its fees are deposited for use within the park. Sec. 508. Duration of Contract.--This section requires that concession contracts be established for no longer than 10 or 20 years. Sec. 509. Transfer of Contract.--This section prohibits transfer or assignment of concession contracts without approval of the Secretary. Sec. 510. Protection of Concessioner Investment.--This section provides concessioners a ``possessory interest'' in structures and fixtures constructed under the terms of existing contracts. The section further provides that future structures and fixtures must be depreciated and the concessioners may maintain an interest only in the non- depreciated portion. Sec. 511. Rates and Charges to Public.--This section requires the Secretary to judge the reasonableness of concessionaires' charges to the public in comparison to equivalent charges at private facilities in close proximity to the park, unless otherwise provided in the contract. Sec. 512. Concessioner Performance Evaluation.--This section requires the Secretary to review the performance of concessioners on a regular basis, and authorizes termination of a concessioner whose performance is unsatisfactory. Sec. 513. Recordkeeping Requirements.--This section requires concessioners to keep records mandated by the Secretary. Sec. 514. Exemption from Certain Lease Requirements.--This section exempts concession contracts from certain federal lease requirements. Sec. 515. No Effect on ANILCA Provisions.--This section provides that this title shall not amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Sec. 516. Implementation.--This section requires periodic audits and reports by the Secretary and Interior Inspector General. Sec. 517. Authorization of Appropriations.--This section authorizes the appropriation of such sums as are necessary to carry out the title.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the $40 billion bailout for Mexico must be rejected by the Members of this House. It is not in the best interests of the American people or our economy. The Mexican bailout is about hot money, just as the REIT collapse in the late 1970's and the Latin American debt crisis in the early 1980's was also about hot money. Junk bonds, savings and loans, it is all about hot money. The Mexican peso's crisis is about a lot of Wall Street wise guys in $1,000 suits and $1 million bonuses who have more money than brains and very poor understanding of political history or ethics. Unfortunately, the money they have is other people's money, money from hard-working Americans who trusted the Wall Street wise guys who, as always, were more interested in the commissions and fees than the results of their investments. What Wall Street wise guys are asking us to do is to extend the full faith and credit of the United States of America not only for their bad investments but also to the economies of the emerging Third World nations. This is not a minor consideration, and we should reject it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is a very good reason that we on the Democratic side continue to talk about the balanced budget and its implications for Social Security, and there is a very real sense of urgency about that this year as opposed to other years, because this is the first time that we have had the leadership of the House committed to changes and to the replacement of the Social Security system. This is the article by Speaker Gingrich where he calls for the replacement of Social Security, and we know others in the Republican leadership that have called that into question. At the same time, they have refused to protect Social Security in the balanced budget amendment that they want this Congress and this House to vote on today. That is what is wrong with their proposal and that is why they refuse to tell the American people what is in their proposal to balance the budget. They refuse to talk about the Medicare cuts that they have to make to balance the budget under their proposals, they refuse to talk about the implications for Social Security under their proposal, they refuse to talk about the Medicaid cuts for long-term care for elderly people in this Nation. That is what is wrong with their proposal. That is why we have to keep reminding this Nation what is at risk, when Republicans who want to cut Social Security, replace Social Security, are in control of the levers of the power in this House.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Republicans got quite upset when people called their Contract With America a contract on America. Today we are finding out, in fact, those who called it a contract on America were more accurate, because it is a contract on our senior citizens, both to their Social Security payments and to their health care coverage given to them under Medicare. The gentleman held up a budget just a minute ago that he said would balance the budget. The only problem was only 73 Members voted for that. The fact of the matter is that the people were not prepared to vote for it. What we see now is the effort of them to rush the balanced budget amendment through, but not have the courage of their convictions to tell Americans in advance where they will cut the budget. The last time they tried to do this only 73 Members voted for it. So what do they want to do now? They want to rush the balanced budget through, not have the courage, the ultimate cynicism of not trusting, not trusting the American people to look at their plan and make a decision whether they want it or not. It is balanced budgeting in the dark, not in the open as they pledged to do.