George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today, we are dealing with a rule on legislative appropriations for the House of Representatives. I rise to speak on this rule because I am also deeply concerned that while we are dealing with the funding of the formal operations of the Congress of the United States in terms of the nuts and bolts that keep this place going from year to year, I am deeply concerned that we are not addressing another problem of funding of the Congress of the United States. That is the manner in which Members of Congress fund their campaigns. Somehow we are able to deal with those provisions of law that deal with the paper clips, the pencils, the paper, the notebooks, and everything else that goes into the Congress of the United States, but what we are not able to deal with is the issue of how we fund our campaigns, how Members of Congress get here and how Members of Congress stay here. We now are witnessing across the entire Government of the United States, except for the House of Representatives, a commitment to debate and to propose campaign finance reform. The President of the United States has called for that. In fact, over 2 years ago, he shook hands with the Speaker of the House. Yesterday, he sent a letter to the Senate saying he would expect the Senate and would keep the Senate in session if a proper debate could not be had on campaign finance reform. Senator Daschle closed the Senate down yesterday, and finally Senator Lott agreed that they would in fact schedule a full and open debate on campaign finance reform measures in the Senate. Yet, we have had no response, in spite of bipartisan letters, in spite of calls from Members of the Republican Caucus, in spite of letters from the Democrats, in spite of a handshake with the President of the United States, an appeal by the President of the United States for campaign finance reform in a State of the Union Message, we have had no response except ``no'' from the Republican leadership of the House. A far more serious question than the formal funding that this resolution makes in order in the legislative appropriations bill is the informal funding that goes on around here. We are now seeing the influence of soft money on the decisionmaking process within the Congress of the United States, how bills are scheduled, how amendments are scheduled, how bills are not scheduled and how amendments are not scheduled. What we have learned in the hearings in the Senate is that soft money is about access; it is about access to committee chairmen, it is about access to the President of the United States, it is about access to the Vice President of the United States, it is about access to the leadership in the House and the Senate. Letters go out on almost a monthly basis saying, if you give us $10,000 or $25,000, you can sit down with the chairman of your choice, the committee chairman of your choice of jurisdiction where you have legislation, you can have a private meeting, a private dinner, a private lunch. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. That is the funding we should be discussing in the House of Representatives. But to date, unfortunately, in spite of all the public record that has been displayed, we are unable to address campaign finance reform. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I appreciate that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] has raised the issue of procedural motions. As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has pointed out, there is nothing else we can do. And he must understand what we have seen now throughout this entire session: If we do nothing, nothing will happen. Because the Republican leadership that controls the schedule, that controls the agenda has determined that we cannot have a debate on campaign finance reform. So there is nothing left for us to do than to raise these procedural motions to try to raise the visibility in the public's mind and in the press as to what is going on on the Republican side. And that is the old four-corner stall in UCLA. They are hoping to play ``beat the clock,'' that if they can pretend like they are doing the people's business, this is not about the people's business, but if they were doing the people's business, we would be reforming the campaign finance system. That locks the people out of the election, allows a special interest, this allows special money in and huge contributions to overwhelm people who try to participate in elections. That is why we have the majority leader in the Senate and Speaker of the House proposing a $50 billion tax rebate for the tobacco companies, because the tobacco companies were the biggest contributors to the party, and in the middle of the night they got what they wanted. But the people did not want a $50 billion tax cut for tobacco companies. It is rather interesting when we forced them to vote in the light of day, it was unanimous. Only three people voted against it in the Senate, unanimous in the House. That is the difference between doing the people's business and doing the special interest business. We will continue to call these votes because the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] leaves us no alternatives. We apologize for the inconvenience. But what is at stake here is the democratic institution of which we serve and the democratic process of electing people, whether or not we will turn that over to the special interests in this country, as opposed to the people from the constituencies which we are elected. That is what the struggle is here. That is what the debate is about.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We do not want to belabor the point. The chairman wants to move on. Hopefully we will have other opportunities to debate this. The gentleman mentioned people from the Philippines. Let me just say, what we are asking for is the same thing that the Philippine government has petitioned the Northern Marianas for these people, that they not be put into forced sex, young girls not be required to dance in bar clubs, and they not be put into prostitution, because that is going on today. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, except there is no independent validation of what the gentleman is saying with respect to the workers. Every independent group that has looked at this has found it to be just the opposite currently going on in the Northern Marianas.

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman. The only reason we would do that is just so it could be in sequence. We did not know if they could strike the 5 minutes.

Mr. MILLER of California. I understand.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of the subcommittee. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment, along with the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for the Office of the United States Attorney to augment this fund by $100,000 for additional resources for the Federal Victims' Assistance Program in the Commonwealth of the Marianas. However, I understand that the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], is willing to engage us in a colloquy, and if I can do so, I would like to do that at this time, with the chairman's permission. In lieu of offering that amendment, I understand that additional funds have already been provided in this bill that could accommodate the need for increased U.S. Attorneys' presence in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to address the increasing docket and strained resources for both the Federal district court and the Office of the U.S. Attorney located in Guam, which presently provides prosecution support to the CNMI. The increased law enforcement of the Federal criminal statutes' victims protection and violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act will be furthered with additional U.S. attorney resources. This will also permit the increased cooperation between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas in addressing any violation of workplace and housing laws. What I would like to ask the chairman is will the chairman work to include the language in the statement of managers which directs the U.S. attorneys to provide an additional $100,000 in resources in Guam for the use of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to address these issues?

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his statement of support and his willingness to work with myself and the other Members, and I appreciate the gentleman agreeing to do this colloquy. The reason we did this, I say to my colleagues, is I think that it is accurate to say that most Members of Congress, like most Americans, are unaware of the tens of thousands of workers who toil on American soil in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands who are routinely subjected to gross violations of their human rights and other rights, while being provided few of the legal protections afforded the rest of us. This widespread and intolerable abuse have been credibly documented by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, State, Labor; and news organizations, including the television program Inside Edition, Reader's Digest, the Honolulu Star Bulletin, the Pacific Daily News, the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times; the report of the Committee on Resources Democratic staff, foreign consulates, church and human rights workers, and many others. It is regrettable that until today, this Congress is one of the few places where we have been unable to gain even minimal discussion of these abuses. Inside Edition captured the horrific conditions in the Marianas on film and for this Nation to view. Now we in Congress must respond to the outrages that they have documented. Indeed, instead of allocating the resources to providing greater protection for these exploited and abused workers, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Government has spent millions of dollars lobbying this Congress to allow these current practices to continue. The victims of this abuse are afraid to complain because they are impoverished and laboring in a foreign country, our country. They are bound by contracts and labor agreements that stifle the most minimum of constitutional and human rights. They know that complaining about the underpayment of wages, forced prostitution, and employer rape carries with it the risk of retaliation or immediate deportation, or actions against their families in China. Mr. Chairman, thousands of these women toil in the garment factories owned by the People's Republic of China, and they are forced to sign shadow contracts with the Chinese Government before they are allowed to work here that stipulate that they are forbidden from practicing religion while in the United States, and may not engage in free speech. This is simply unacceptable. Here perhaps is the most shocking fact. The products that this exploited labor work force, the products that they work on, are admitted to our national markets duty-free, quota-free, and with the label sewn by these indentured workers that says, ``Made in the U.S.A.'' We can no longer accept this practice. Additional funds for the Attorney General's office in the Northern Marianas are desperately needed. I thank the chairman again for entering into this colloquy.

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their attendance to this problem.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

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. If the gentleman will yield, it would be a big deal in Delaware.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor and joy to be here joining the gentleman from Alaska in putting additional lands into wilderness. It is only 54 acres, but hope springs eternal on this side of the aisle. But the fact of the matter is that the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the Alaska Pulp Corporation, and the Forest Service have worked out a land swap that is of benefit to the local area and also a benefit to the Nation's wilderness system. Very often during these land exchanges I have asked whether or not these exchanges are of fair and equal value. In this case I am relying on the chief appraiser of the Forest Service, who has concluded the values of the property interests to be exchanged are equal. In addition, my concerns about a NEPA waiver in the bill as introduced have been addressed with language to assure us that APC meets its clean-up obligations at the former mill site lands. By enacting this bill, we do not intend to alter APC's obligations to pay for cleaning up pulp-mill-related pollution. So I think the gentleman in fact has brought again to the floor a bill that we can all support. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments to H.R. 1420 made by the other body. This is in fact a bona fide compromise which resulted from concessions on both sides. When the House last considered this bill, it was 407 to 1. Maybe we can find that one person and they can vote for it this time. I want to thank my chairman of the committee, the members, and so many people who helped on this measure: Secretary Babbitt, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], who really did in fact search for common ground on this bill. This bill continues building on the original version of the refuge system put together by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], a true National Wildlife Refuge System that was envisioned at that time, and ensures that wildlife refuges, the only public lands dedicated to wildlife conservation, are properly managed and protected, while encouraging greater public appreciation for wildlife and the use of the refuge system. Whether or not Members like to shoot birds with a Browning or a Nikon, this bill will enhance their appreciation of the refuge system. I urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

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