George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I do not, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican leadership pulled the campaign finance bill from the House Committee on Rules. They did so not because they feared that it would fail, they did so because they feared that it would pass. They feared for the first time that there would be a bipartisan coalition in this House that would support meaningful campaign finance reform when we were given an opportunity to offer that on the motion to recommit. So rather than recognize that a majority of this House, Republicans and Democrats together, want to reform our finance system for campaigns, they pulled the bill, because the Republicans are trying to manage a defeat. They are not trying to manage a victory. They do not want campaign finance reform to pass. They want it to fail. The problem is now the bill has too many votes. So they have to go back and tinker with it to see if they can make sure that enough people will not approve it. Their bill will fail. Real reform will pass. That is their problem. They want to stifle working families from participating in campaigns and triple the amount of money that rich families can give to campaigns.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the latest in a series of efforts by the Republican majority to undermine working men and women in this country. First the Republican Majority tries to silence the voices of rank-and- file Americans under their phony campaign finance reform bill. Now they want to give employers the power to hire and fire workers based solely on their support for union representation. Again, we have very damaging legislation clothed in an innocuous title. This bill is called the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998, but it is not fair, it is not limited to small businesses, and it certainly does nothing for employees. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this bill permits employers to discriminate against workers on the basis of the worker's union support. It would permit and even encourage employers to interrogate applicants on their preferences for union representation and refuse to hire the applicants on that basis. This bill overturns the unanimous 1995 Supreme Court decision. The Court said that a worker can be a company's employee and simultaneously work in support of union representation. But the Republican majority does not like the Supreme Court decision and they do not like labor unions so they plan to overturn the Court's decision with the passage of this bill. The Republican majority says that this bill is necessary to prevent abuses by employers. This is nonsense. Employers already have more than enough power to control what goes on in the workplaces. Current law already provides that employers may prohibit union solicitation during working hours. Current law allows employers to prohibit their employees from even discussing the union during work time. Current law allows companies to require employees to attend meetings, listen to campaign speeches and watch campaign videos. Current law allows employers to fire employees who refuse to listen or dare to ask questions in such captive-audience meetings. Mr. Speaker, the message of this bill is that employers can never have enough power over their workers. The message of this bill is that employers' decisions to hire or fire employees can be based solely on that employee's beliefs and their desire to have a unionized workplace and their activities outside of nonworking hours. The message of this bill is regardless of how hard one works, how much they produce, how impeccable their record of service, they can be fired for wanting and seeking a better representation for themselves and their co-workers by having a union in the workplace. Mr. Speaker, this bill is antidemocratic, it is antiworker, it is antiunion, and my colleagues ought to vote against it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill which will allow the States of California, Oregon, and Washington to continue to manage the Dungeness crab fishery in the exclusive economic zone. The bill may be cited as the Dungeness Crab conservation and Management Act. This bill authorizes the States to continue to cooperatively manage the Dungeness crab fishery along the west coast, as authorized for an interim period in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. This legislation would ensure continued conservation of the Dungeness Crab, a valuable regional resource. It would resolve allocation issues, protect tribal rights, and avoid direct Federal involvement in a regional agreement which has widespread support from its stakeholders. The States and the industry have worked together to establish limited entry programs, cooperate on season openings, size limits, and harvest requirements. The fishery is conducted in both State and the exclusive economic zone, and management is coordinated by the Dungeness Crab Committee of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Congress granted the states interim authority to manage the Dungeness crab fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone to accommodate the rights of Northwest Indian tribes to harvest a share of the crab resource off Washington. The Pacific Fishery Management Council was then asked to report to Congress on progress towards a Federal fishery management plan or impediments to such progress. The Council and the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee examined the options for the fishery, and after careful evaluation of the merits of various management regimes voted unanimously to request that Congress allow the existing management structure to be made permanent with certain changes. These changes include a clarification of what license is required for the fishery, broader authority for the States to ensure equitable access to the resource, and clarification of tribal rights. This action is consistent with previous actions under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act where fisheries have remained under the jurisdiction of individual States or interstate organizations, such as the Gulf of Alaska king crab fishery. Neither the Council nor the fishermen in the three States want to see Federal management of the fishery. This amendment offers the stakeholders in the fishery an opportunity to maintain an effective management systems which protects both the resource and the working men and women of the west coast fishing fleet who depend upon it. I look forward to the timely consideration of this bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and H.R. 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This restrictive rule prevents most Members of Congress from offering any amendments to perfect this bill and to ensure that it is the people of Africa who will benefit from this legislation. This rule makes it impossible to require that the benefits provided by the United States under this legislation be granted only if the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa employ African workers in the production of goods granted preferential market access to the United States. I favor the goals of this bill to provide a foundation for strong democracy and a sustainable social and economic development in Africa. However, I cannot sanction legislation that, in its current form, promotes these goals at the expense of African workers, the very sector of society upon which future economic development relies. At the very least, we must promote an economic foundation for Africa which has as its cornerstone the provision of the ample employment opportunities for the indigenous citizens and permanent residents. Were this a fair rule, I would have been allowed to offer a simple but vital amendment. My amendment would have required that the benefits provided in this legislation, including duty-free and quota-free access to U.S. markets, only be afforded to those African countries if the goods produced were created by a work force that is composed of at least 80 percent permanent resident workers. In addition, my amendment would have required that these countries avoid the use of indentured, bonded, forced, convict or exploited child labor in the manufacture of these goods. My colleagues say that this is not going to happen, that this is not possible, that the ocean is too far. Well, let me explain to my colleagues that the Chinese garment makers send to the northern Mariana Islands goods woven in China, cut in China, and assembled in the northern Marianas by the Chinese workers, a totally controlled work force that is indentured, that is bonded, where the young people are forced into forced abortions and into prostitution. It is a simple matter for the Chinese to do the same thing in Africa, because it is very clear why they are there. They can get there under the U.S. quota. This is just legalizing transshipment, and what happens is that those workers can be imported from China, from India, from Bangladesh, as they are in the Northern Marianas, and they will be there to do the work, to create the goods that my colleague held up here; they will not be created by African workers because those workers will work for far less than any of the wages that are offered to them in Africa. This is a fact of life. We deal with it now. Almost a billion and a half dollars worth of garments comes in quota-free, duty-free from the Marianas. We should not set up a parallel system. We should not set up a parallel system in Africa. This legislation should bestow the benefits of this bill on the African people, not on the corporations that will set up in these zones and then import their workers, workers who will have paid large amounts of money, who in fact become indentured and work for pennies a day in violation of all, all working conditions that we would consider acceptable. This bill should be sent back to the Committee on Rules.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, currently under the rule there will be 1 hour on the amendments to Solomon; is that correct?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the coauthor, the sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has quite properly stated what this amendment is about. This amendment is about should at the end of this process the people of Puerto Rico decide to choose statehood as an option and a condition under which they want to live, the language in the Burton substitute says they will be treated the same as any other State. They will be treated the same as the citizens of Nebraska or California or New York or Florida or Louisiana or anywhere else. If this Congress should decide that English is the official language of this country and wants to add a lot of requirements about that at some future date, if Puerto Rico is a State, Puerto Rico will live under those requirements the same as the citizens of any other State. If Puerto Rico petitions to become a State, and we agree to that, and they vote for that and we vote for that, they are petitioning to become a State on coequal terms of every other citizen of every other State. The Solomon amendment goes beyond that. It goes beyond that to require, require, that the communications be only in English and people can only communicate with the Federal Government in English, far beyond what is required today in any law that we have. So what we said was not knowing yet what the people of Puerto Rico will determine, let us just level the playing field, so, again, this debate cannot be used, because in the politics of the campaign, statehood versus commonwealth versus independence, people want to argue you are going to lose your right to speak Spanish, you are going to be forced to speak only English, you are not going to have citizenship. This campaign gets way out of control. So we tried to put language here which is very simple. You will be treated, should you vote for statehood, the same as any other citizen in any other State, period, with respect to the requirements of the English language of the Federal Government. That is fair, and I think it is proper, when people are going to engage in a historical vote about their status from that point forward. That is what this committee owed them, that is what this Congress owes them, and the Burton amendment allows that to happen. It simply levels out the playing field with respect to English. They will know that they will not be discriminated against because they speak Spanish; they will not be burdened because they do not have full compliance with English. They will simply be treated the same as all other American citizens. Many people have risen on this floor today to testify as to the contributions the Puerto Rican people, the citizens of this country, have made to the growth of this country in every aspect of our history. All we are saying to those people is, you will be treated the same as everyone else who has made that contribution. And when you make the decision to choose statehood or commonwealth, you will know that the playing field is level here. That is what the Burton amendment accomplishes. That is not what the Solomon amendment does. The Solomon amendment puts a series of conditions beyond that level playing field, that in the text of his amendment apply only to Puerto Rico and only to those communications between the citizens of Puerto Rico and the government. That we should reject. If later we want to do that, and Mr. Cunningham indicated that maybe the English as an official language bill will come back, if that prevails and passes and is signed into law, that will be the law of the land with respect to the people in Puerto Rico and the people in California. But we should not be trying to guide that determination here, because this is about a plebiscite, and this is about what people can expect to happen and not happen should they choose one of the three alternatives outlined in the legislation. This committee worked very hard. Mr. Young held a whole series of hearings in Puerto Rico and here to try and determine the fairest way to present these three options. We ought not now try to put our thumb on one side of the scale one way or the other with respect to the outcome of that vote. The people of Puerto Rico ought to be able to make their choice in this plebiscite about their status, and then it will be incumbent upon the Congress to either accept or reject that or to condition that. But we will then know what the choice of the people of Puerto Rico is. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Burton amendment maintains the integrity of this process so that we will know when that vote is taken, that we have provided free and fair options with respect to the status for the people of Puerto Rico to choose. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) to close our side on this debate.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand). (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez.) (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) got up and spoke about his legislation dealing with English as an official language. The point was made that all states would be treated the same, and the states had a right to change some requirements under the 10th Amendment, should they decide to do so. The problem with the Solomon amendment is that in fact in this legislation it treats Puerto Rico differently than any other State in the Union, because it goes on and declares that English is the official language of the United States. But it then goes on to say the people of Puerto Rico can only communicate with the Federal Government in English and that the Federal Government can only communicate with the people of Puerto Rico in English. This means if you are a DEA agent, you can only speak English if you are engaged in an activity. If you are the FBI, you can only speak English if you are engaged in an activity. If you are engaged in a search and rescue and the people do not speak English, you can only speak to them in English. I do not think that is what we want to do. There is a legitimate debate to be had under the Cunningham legislation. We had it two years ago. I suspect we will have it again before this year is out. That would apply to all of the states equally and the states would retain their rights. But the Solomon amendment goes far beyond those requirements and singles out Puerto Rico for special burdensome treatment. People can only write to their member of Congress, should they choose statehood and have Members in the Congress of the United States, they could only write to them in English. It would be against the law to write to them in Spanish or in another language. It would be against the law to petition the President of the United States or the Congress in any other language. That is not true anywhere else in this country. We ought to make sure that if we deal with this issue, that we treat all of the states on an equal footing. This says if Puerto Rico becomes a state, it would be singled out for much more burdensome treatment than the general debate on English as an official language.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. In closing I again want to reiterate that I think that the committee has brought to the floor of the House a fair procedure for determining the future status of Puerto Rico, should the citizens of Puerto Rico decide to engage in that process. There is no question that these choices are difficult choices, and that is why the process is set forth in the manner it is so that the Puerto Rican citizens can be best informed as they proceed down this path as to whether or not they want to choose independence, statehood or Commonwealth status. And there is a very real difference between these three statuses. People like to pretend that they can argue that they are sort of the same, enhanced Commonwealth; that is, to pretend like you have all of the same rights as the citizens of the United States of America, but they know, in reality, they do not. So Commonwealth will have some burdens. Statehood, because it puts them in the same status as all of the rest of the citizens, there will be people in Puerto Rico that think that that brings burden to the selection, to the plebiscite. They will make those decisions, and they will argue about them back and forth. But the fact is that if you vote to become a State, you become a State. You share all of the benefits and all of the liabilities. If you vote to continue in Commonwealth, you are something less than that. You do not share equally with the citizens of California in public assistance payments and education payments and education to the handicap and food stamps and nutrition programs, because you are not a State. The representatives of Puerto Rico historically have tried to boost those allotments, to boost those payments, to argue that these are citizens who are treated unfairly. But that has not been how the Congress has responded. So those citizens are deprived the full benefits, but they are deprived the full benefits because the Congress has decided that they are not the same as citizens of the States. That is a burden of Commonwealth. People do not like to talk about that. Another burden a Commonwealth has is it does not want to acknowledge that it has to live under the laws of this country as put forth by the Congress of the United States, but it does. If this was, in fact, a nation today, then what are we doing here today? We are here because, under the current arrangement, they are forced to live under Federal laws of this country, and some people do not like that. They believe they would rather be a separate nation, or they believe that, if they have to live under these laws, they also want to participate in the benefits of everything else that goes along with being a State. The definition of Commonwealth is an accurate description of the status of Puerto Rico today. That is the status that we would ask the people to vote on. That is Commonwealth today. Not what they hope Commonwealth would be, not what they would like it to be, but what it is under the laws of this country and the Constitution of the United States of America. If you cannot, if that is not a winning hand in the election, so be it. But that is the laws of this country. That is the Constitution of this country. Yes, it is different. It is different than being a citizen of the State of the United States of America. Now, many people have come to my office, and they have argued to me how really it is not different. Folks, it is different. That is what this election will be about. We treat them differently every day. That is what upsets so many people, that citizens of the United States of America can be treated in this fashion as this Congress deliberates action after action after action. The remedy for that is statehood, or the remedy for that is independence, or the status quo, which would be Commonwealth. Those are the choices at the end of the day that the people of Puerto Rico will have to decide. Those are the choices in a fair and open and just manner that this committee presents to the plebiscite. The people of Puerto Rico will make a determination of which status they want to determine. If the Olympic team is so important, then I guess they can take Commonwealth. They can continue that. But then they have to look the citizens in the eye and say, but by the same token, you cannot share in the benefits of all the other citizens of the United States. If it is less important, they might decide that the great athletes of Puerto Rico can run on the American team and participate, and they can share in equal benefits. That is what this is about. And at the end of the day, this bill presents that in a fair and open fashion.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is correct in one aspect of his amendment. That is, I think that ultimately for this act to succeed, the vote to change the status in Puerto Rico to State should be by a supermajority. In the past, that has happened in other States because of the enthusiasm by the end of the process for statehood, and when they in fact voted on the admission, as the proponents of this amendment pointed out, they voted by 79 percent and other supermajorities, but there was no requirement that they voted. Had Alaska voted by 50.1 percent, it would have been a State. It voted by 79, but there was no requirement. This would be the first time that we have placed this requirement on this. I agree with that requirement, but I am deeply disturbed by the fact that we have a 75 percent threshold here. I just think that we have raised the bar where in fact this amendment, in all likelihood, could torpedo this act; or should the people in Puerto Rico choose to go forward with the process of adopting statehood, that this in fact could be a defeat of that aspect. I think a reasonable higher percentage, above 50 percent, is understandable, but I do not believe that 75 percent is it, and for that reason I would oppose this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not sure that is a real option to many of the people who support independence. They will have to determine that. I remain opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this approach works. I think after looking at a number of different approaches, the committee decided that all three options ought to be on the ballot; that the people, given the political cultural history of people on the islands, they ought to be able to express it along those lines. I am sure there are many people that might vote for independence, which historically has been the third party out. The notion of a runoff to many of these people, that is not an option to them. They would not go from independence to saying they are looking for statehood. It does not work. This is a political process where people have very, very strong convictions. We may want to transport the mainland system, where people kind of wander around between Republicans and Democrats and different options and do not seem to hold the same kind of convictions. On this issue, people have very strongly held positions, and the fact that you lose the runoff does not mean you then convert that position immediately to one of the other options, because that is not how your political positions have evolved or have been articulated over the many years of this relationship.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, our two colleagues in support of their amendment described, I think accurately, a history of Puerto Rico but they did not accurately describe the nation. It is that history, that is the reason why we are here today, so that the people of Puerto Rico can freely and openly choose the status which they desire. Because of that history, because of how this relationship has evolved, that is why we are here today, to pass this legislation and then the people in Puerto Rico can make the decision about their status. I oppose this amendment.