George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggested somehow that the Endangered Species Act prevents these projects from going forward.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, over two dozen Members of Congress have joined in introducing H.R. 1450, urgently needed legislation to stop the inexcusable pattern of labor and human rights abuses in the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI]. The full extent of those systematic abuses was detailed in the report released last week by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Resources, Economic Miracle or Economic Mirage: The Human Cost of Development in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Prominent human rights and religious groups including Human Rights Watch, the Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace, and the United States Catholic Conference, as well as national labor organizations, are unified in their support of the Insular Fair Wage and Human Rights Act of 1997. This bill would mandate needed reforms in the CNMI's minimum wage and immigration policies. H.R. 1450 sends a strong message to the CNMI Government that these continued abuses will not be tolerated on United States soil. I welcome the following April 28, 1997 editorial from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in support of this important legislation. The editorial accurately refers to reports that mistreatment of CNMI laborers has been well documented for years, and the CNMI Government has been unwilling to provide satisfactory protections to these thousands of guests to the United States. This editorial as well as the strong support of the Hawaii congressional delegation and the many organizations in Hawaii including the Filipino Coalition for Solidarity, the United Filipino Council of Hawaii, the Oahu Filipino Community Council, the Aloha Medical Mission, and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 5, is critical to achieve reform in the CNMI. The Department of the Interior has urged Congress to take swift action on this issue. It is my hope that the administration, the Congress, and the strong coalition of interest groups will be successful in bringing about reform in the CNMI this session of Congress. [From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 28, 1997] Congress Should Act on Northern Marianas Patience with the Northern Marianas government is running out in Washington. A group of Democratic members of the House of Representatives, including Hawaii's members, is seeking expansion of federal control of the islands to deal with abuses of foreign labor. These reportedly include forced prostitution, drug activity and labor practices likened to slavery. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., has introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage in the Northern Marianas to the federal level, institute federal control over immigration and require garment manufacturers to comply with federal labor laws. Hawaii Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Patsy Mink are among the 25 co-sponsors. The Northern Marianas were formerly part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. They became a U.S. commonwealth in 1976 after the people approved that status in a plebiscite. As a commonwealth, the islands have limited autonomy but are still under U.S. control. Complaints about employer mistreatment of foreign labor have been heard for years. Two years ago an official of the Interior Department's Office of Territorial and International Affairs told a meeting organized by Hawaii Filipino leaders that the reported violations of human rights in the Northern Marianas ``have no place in a place that flies the U.S. flag.'' The official spoke in Honolulu en route back to Washington from an inspection trip to Saipan, capital of the Northern Marianas. Miller charges that the human-rights violations continue in the islands despite criticism by Congress and federal agencies. He says, ``These workers are not free.'' His bill has the support of Filipino organizations in Hawaii. Filipinos comprise the largest group of foreign workers in the islands, but there are also workers from China, South Korea and Japan. A bill to federalize the Northern Marianas' minimum wage passed the Senate last year but died in the House. Miller's bill is worthy of support in view of the inability of the commonwealth government to deal with the problem. These abuses need not and should not be tolerated because the Northern Marianas have commonwealth status.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, after 3 years, we need to ask the question: Has NAFTA been fair to the American people? Would its expansion be fair to workers and the environment? Would it be fair to American consumers? Based on the past 3 years, we'd have to say, ``no.'' The basic premise of free trade--that the manufacturer who makes the best product at the cheapest price wins--does not constitute fair trade unless consumers know what they are buying. Otherwise, that cheap price may mask dreadful working conditions, inadequate pay, exploitation of children or environmental practices that, were they known, would cause American consumers to make other purchase decisions: To avoid Mexican tomatoes sprayed with pesticides banned in the United States; to refuse to purchase vegetables picked by children who work in the fields instead of going to school; to reject tuna harvested by slaughtering thousands of dolphins. Most of us remember the TV commercials ``Look for the union label.'' Americans took that message to heart, and many shop specifically for products labeled ``Made in USA.'' Even in those cases where consumers purchase imported goods, however, they have a right--and some would argue an obligation--to know the conditions under which merchandise has been manufactured, and to avoid purchasing products manufactured under conditions considered abhorrent in this country. NAFTA is premised on the notion that consumers, not governments, should make decisions about what to purchase. But consumers cannot make those choices unless they are provided full information about the products offered to them. And make no mistake: When we purchase products manufactured under shocking conditions, we are encouraging those conditions to persist with our dollars. It seems like a simple premise: American consumers have a right to know what they're buying. Who can argue with it? The United States is the most sought-after market in the world. Americans purchase more food, more clothing, more cars, and more toys than anyone else in the world. It would follow that we'd like to choose our purchases wisely. What manufacturer or retailer wouldn't support the consumers' ``right to know''? The sad truth is, many manufacturers do not support that right, and neither do some high in our own government who should know better. Two weeks ago, while the parents of Michigan schoolchildren were still reeling from an outbreak of hepatitis traced to Mexican strawberries, Members of Congress from California and Florida introduced legislation to require that the country of origin be clearly labeled for all fresh fruits and vegetables sold in the United States. Who could disagree? Consumers should know whether their strawberries came from Mexico or California, or whether their tomatoes were grown in Florida or Chile. But amazingly, it's not at all that simple--because importers and many retailers--and some in our own government--don't want the American people to know where their purchases come from, and they certainly don't want you to know how they were grown or made. Because they know--and the polls indicate--that, given accurate information about the effects of a product on the environment, children, women, or worker rights, most consumers will purchase responsibly. Does all this sound melodramatic? Let's look at the facts. Right now, retailers and importers--led by the American Frozen Food Institute--are vehemently opposing requirements to label frozen foods with the country of origin on the front of the package, where consumers can see it clearly at the time of purchase. In fact, Canada has already filed a protest against such labeling. Why? Because other countries believe clear, easy-to-read, conspicuous labels are a ``nontariff trade barrier.'' In other words, American consumers may choose not to purchase an imported item. Nontariff trade barriers are trade-speak for anything that might help American consumers to choose American-made or American-grown goods over foreign products. And under the rules of free trade, nontariff trade barriers are illegal. In fact, under the rules of free trade as imposed by NAFTA, anything that restricts trade in any way is illegal--and that includes information labels on where and how your purchase was made, harvested, or grown. If Mexico has its way, and we expand NAFTA to other Latin American nations, American consumers will be unable to determine where the next load of hepatitis-infected strawberries came from, and they'll no longer be able to assure their children that their tuna fish sandwich wasn't caught at Flipper's expense. Within the next few weeks, Congress will be voting on a bill that will change the meaning of the famous Dolphin-Safe label found on every can of tuna in this country for the past 7 years. Dolphins will be chased with helicopters and high-speed boats, caught in nets, seriously injured, mothers separated from their calves--and as long as no dolphins are observed to die, that tuna will be labeled ``safe'' for dolphins. Why? Because Mexico insists on it. Mexico is well aware that American consumers will not choose to purchase tuna caught by harming dolphins; therefore, to gain a large share of the U.S. tuna market, they are lobbying to dupe American consumers into purchasing tuna labeled with a redefined ``Dolphin Safe'' label. The Administration, supporting this change, offers a thin defense for their capitulation to Mexico: the Administration asserts that no studies have been conducted to indicate that the capture method was not safe for dolphins. Applying this view to other products would result in the application of a ``Child Safe'' label to toys provided that no studies have been conducted to prove them harmful to children. This is a sweeping and damaging precedent for other U.S. labeling laws designed to protect and inform American consumers. This is where NAFTA has brought us. Now, I do not pretend that these problems exist only in other nations. Just last week, I joined with human rights and labor groups to release a report documenting the systematic exploitation of foreign workers--mostly young women--in the sweatshops and other manufacturing industries located in our own territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. My legislation would compel that territory to meet Federal standards for minimum wage and immigration, and would deny manufacturers there the right to continue to use the ``Made in USA'' label on their products unless they were manufactured in full compliance with our own labor laws. I conducted that investigation and introduced that bill for the same reasons that motivate me on NAFTA and international trade: American consumers should not inadvertently promote and support, with their dollars, the exploitation of workers, or the rape of the environment, or other practices that we will not tolerate in this country and should not subsidize in the name of ``free trade.'' The trade may be free, but the workers sure aren't. Let's face the fact that there are nations and there are businesses that rely on the exploitation of children, women, or the environment to attract investment in their country. And let's face the fact that these nations rely on the rules and rhetoric of the free trade game to pull all of us down to the lowest common denominator. The American people should be outraged.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to address the systematic, persistent, and inexcusable exploitation of men and women in sweatshops in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory of the United States of America. Despite criticisms from the Congress and Federal agencies, and despite promises by CNMI leaders of sweeping change of aggressive action against abusive employers, these conditions continue today, confirmed by CNMI observers, human rights and religious organizations, and Federal enforcement and oversight agencies. These workers are not free, and are not given the same opportunities and protections every other worker in the United States or its territories is provided. To these workers, the American dream has become a nightmare. Consumers in the United States and around the world expect that the label ``Made in USA'' stands for something. American manufacturers know that label signifies compliance with basic worker protection laws and human rights guarantees. But in the CNMI, that made in USA label is used to conceal systematic exploitation. Last week, President Clinton and garment industry leaders announced a U.S. apparel industry partnership dedicated to eliminating sweatshop working conditions around the world. Those efforts must also focus on our own soil, on the CNMI, where conditions that could not be tolerated anywhere elsewhere in America flourish with the blessings of the local government. In the CNMI, human rights and the basic rights all American workers are supposed to enjoy are routinely brushed aside in the pursuit of an economic miracle. The CNMI Government is currently spending in excess of $1 million in an unprecedented effort to paint a highly favorable picture of its economy. But the record indicates this is no economic miracle; it is an economic mirage, built on exploited foreign labor. Freed from U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws, the CNMI-- Uses its immigration policy to open its borders to a flood of foreign workers--from the Philippines, China, and other Asian countries--that now outnumber the indigenous population. Maintains a minimum wage of as little as $2.90 an hour for garment workers--and far less for household workers and farmers--despite promises to bring wages to the Federal level. Ignores employer restrictions against U.S. laws--such as the right to unionize and to receive all wages earned, instead maintaining a bureaucracy that makes it all but impossible for workers to seek redress. Fails to prosecute aggressively those who mistreat and abuse foreign labor by forcing them into prostitution and other types of involuntary sexual activity, who restrict their expressions of political beliefs, and who deny them the wages they have earned. In fact, many workers have said that speaking out against battery and rape, against unsanitary living barracks, against illegal wage withholdings, long hours or violations of their work contract, can result in prompt deportation and the forfeiture of their wages. Congress in recent years, on a bipartisan basis, has called upon the CNMI to end these abuses, but with little effect. In fact, the CNMI Government has passed several laws that actually roll back worker protections, and broke a promise to the U.S. Congress to raise its minimum wage across the board, to the Federal level. This continuing pattern of abuse and indifference to human exploitation demands a rapid response from the Congress and from the Clinton administration. Today, along with several cosponsors, I am introducing legislation to protect the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label by only permitting its use when all applicable labor laws are obeyed. This legislation will increase the minimum wage in the CNMI in stages until it matches the Federal level. Lastly, this legislation will also bring the CNMI under the Immigration and Naturalization Service which, unlike the CNMI's Government, has the skills and resources to establish credible and enforceable policies that do not sanction the exploitation of men and women.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that we are considering House Concurrent Resolution 8 today. The global crisis in coral reef health is an important issue that has received little recent attention in Congress. I commend the Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Saxton, for introducing the resolution, of which I am an original cosponsor. Coral reefs are one of nature's wonders. While they provide important physical habitat for ecologically and economically important species, the reef itself is also a living structure. And, as a living structure, thousands--perhaps millions--of individual coral animals are dying and others are taking their place on the reef at any one time. The problem is that now human activities have shifted that balance and coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate worldwide. Corals are very sensitive to water pollution, sedimentation, damage from boat groundings, and even simple physical contact by divers. Coral reefs are, in a sense, the canary in the coal mine of the oceans. A great deal of injury is being inflicted on coral reefs, mainly in southeast Asia, through easily preventable, largely illegal fishing techniques. Cyanide and other poisons are being used to stun and capture fish for the aquarium trade and for the live food fish trade. These chemicals kill nearby coral, and divers scrambling to get fish out of nooks and crannies in the reef often inflict further damage on the reef. Most of the aquarium fish captured in this way end up in hobbyists' tanks in the United States. So this is not just a foreign problem; we have to take some responsibility for our consumer actions that are driving these practices. I have introduced legislation myself, House Resolution 87, to address the specific problem of unsustainable coral reef fisheries. I understand that the Fisheries Subcommittee will hold a hearing on that resolution next month, and I hope that it will be marked up shortly thereafter. Both of these resolutions share a common purpose. They are intended to bring the global plight of coral reefs before Congress, raise the level of awareness of policy makers, and ask us to do more. The scientific and environmental communities have declared 1997 the International Year of the Reef. What better time for us to pay attention to the many problems plaguing coral reefs, and seek practical solutions to those threats? If we don't do something soon, there may not be any reefs left to save. I urge the House to support the resolution and I hope we will continue in the coming months to take action to address the coral reef crisis.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 39 which continues funding for the African Elephant Conservation Act through the year 2002. Enacted in October 1988 in response to the alarming decline of African elephants, the act has made a significant contribution to the preservation of this threatened species. This legislation will allow these efforts to continue. The African Elephant Conservation Act has funded effective programs throughout 17 different African countries. Efficiently using small, strategically important grants, the act: enhances elephant conservation management programs; supports antipoaching training and operations; and develops sound scientific data on elephant populations. The act promotes range-wide efforts, as well as cooperative projects that provide for matching funds from a variety of other sources. All of these programs work toward the act's purpose of perpetuating healthy populations of African elephants. Despite the achievements seen so far, I am concerned about the coordination and management of U.S. funded elephant conservation efforts. Programs that impact African elephant populations are funded by both this act and the United States Agency for International Development, and it is not clear whether these efforts are mutually supportive. They should be. Furthermore, it is essential that innovative programs and management decisions are well grounded in science and sound management practices, and are effective in increasing elephant populations. We must ensure that all United States funded programs work toward the same ends--the conservation of African elephants. I appreciate the importance the Speaker, Mr. Young, and Mr. Saxton place on conserving African elephants, and I commend them for moving expeditiously to reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act. Their support of this legislation reflects the strong desire by the American public to preserve African elephants. By passing this legislation, and by continuing to monitor all U.S. efforts supporting elephant conservation, we can fulfill this desire.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when will it ever end? When will it ever end with respect to special interest money and public policy in the people's House. Later today we will learn that Speaker Gingrich will pay his fine for lying to Congress by borrowing it from Bob Dole, Bob Dole who was recently hired by big tobacco to get a settlement in the Congress of the United States for all of the people that tobacco has injured because of addiction and the cancer causing agent. We now have the chief lobbyists for big tobacco financing the payoff of the Speaker's fine for lying to the Congress. Is there nothing that we cannot do without special interest money? Is there nothing that we cannot do that is on the level? Do we now have to bring in big tobacco to rescue the ethics of the Speaker of the House of Representatives? This is a very sad day for the House of Representatives when the tobacco industry is paying the legal fines of Members of Congress.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the point is this. The point is that the American public is treated on a daily basis to account after account after account where money buys you privilege in the House of Representatives among the leadership and it buys you access. That has got to stop because it simply is not fair to the American people. Money is distorting how decisions are being made in this House, the people's House. Money is distorting outcomes in the people's House. Money is distorting the schedule in the people's House. That has got to stop. And that is what is happening under the existing system. That is happening under the existing system, and that is why we objected yesterday so we could get time today to speak out against the status quo. The status quo is corroding this institution, it is corroding the decisionmaking process, it is corroding the outcome. The people of this country deserve better. That is why we need campaign finance reform. We need it for this institution. We need it for the integrity of the Democratic institution, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate. We need it to bring back the faith of the people we represent. This is not about our campaigns. This is not about whether we get elected or not elected. This is about whether or not it is on the level in this place, whether or not every person has the right to the same access; not access based upon merit, not on the size of your wallet, not on the size of your contribution. That is what this argument is over. But they will not let us have this debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have to go through parliamentary maneuver after parliamentary maneuver to have this said. Why? Because it is very embarrassing. It is very embarrassing on the bipartisan basis. But we have got to clear the air. We owe it to the American public. We have got to clear the air at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and we have got to clear the air at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We owe the public no less.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, not only will the Republicans not bring campaign finance reform to the floor, but their rhetoric today tells us how far away they are from what is happening in America. They want to suggest that the existing system is just fine, that it is a transgression simply of the White House that we should only be concerned about. And we should be very concerned about those. They would argue that it is OK, as they did under the existing system, to have Haley Barbour say that he can set up meetings for anybody who gives $100,000 to any Republican chairman of the House, and he has never been turned down. They would say it is fine to have a person who is accused of shaking down a lobbyist and threatening them that if they do not contribute to him, they will never have access to his office again. Under a current FBI investigation, it is just fine to have him investigate the President. They would suggest that it is fine that a committee Chair, Republican committee Chair, get $200,000 from the very people he meets with about matters before his committee and the money comes right after the meetings. That is all apparently allowed under the existing system, and they do not think it should be investigated. They do not think it should be investigated; that there is nothing wrong with the system; that at the Republican gala, top donors, if you give $250,000 you can get to a lunch with the Republican majority leader, the Speaker, the whip, and others and committee Chairs. If you give $10,000, you can have a meeting. You know what you get, ladies and gentlemen, you get seats in the gallery. You the public get seats in the gallery. You know what big donors get? They get access to leadership power and decisions. That is under the existing system, and that is why we are saying it has to be reformed. Two years ago we watched as top lobbyists sat in the majority whip's office and drafted legislation to the Clean Water Act.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the objection. The point is on March 12, 1995, the Washington Post sets forth the series of meetings taking place wherein lobbyists and campaign contributors are provided a full partnership, are provided a full partnership, and I will yield in 1 second, in the drafting of legislation that was dealing at that time with deregulation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place into the Record an article from the Washington Post, March 12, 1995: ``Forging an Alliance of Deregulation, Representative DeLay Makes Companies Full Partners in the Movement.''

Mr. MILLER of California. Does the gentleman deny that these meetings took place?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman wanted to take down words for inaccurate statements. I guess we can understand why the ruling does not exist right now.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, unfortunately I can either make the contribution or I am a lobbyist. I was not privy to the meeting, but the meeting was widely reported, and I am not seeing the denial of the meeting taking place.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. I want to commend the gentleman for the position that he and a number of his members on the Democratic side of the committee have taken. I only wish it would be taken by the entire committee, by the chairman, and by the leadership of the House. One of the things that is becoming very clear, as we watch your investigations and others get under way with respect to the White House and the whole question of campaign finance reform and what happened in the last election and the incredible amounts of money, is that we do not have a lot of credibility with the public on this issue. They really do believe that in some cases the fox is guarding the hen house here. The only way that we can start to reestablish that credibility is with a complete, comprehensive, and a bipartisan investigation. One of the finest hours in terms of the public's understanding of the Congress and appreciation for the Congress was in the Watergate investigations, which were done, in fact, on a bipartisan basis because what was at stake was, in fact, the very institution of the Presidency, of the separation of powers, and of our democratic institutions. I would suggest to the gentleman from California, and I would suggest to Chairman Burton, and I would suggest to the Republican leadership that no less is at stake here. No less is at stake here because what we have seen is, in this last campaign in action, by the White House, by the Republican National Committee, by the Dole committee, by the Democratic National Committee, by Members of Congress, what we have seen is that we have essentially lost the confidence of the American people. That becomes very clear in any sampling done of the American public. There is no substitute for a bipartisan, comprehensive investigation into irregularities with respect to this, into the legalities of various activities, into the ethics of these activities. If we fail to do that, whether or not you can pin somebody's hide to the wall or not will not resonate with the public in terms of whether they believe we have done the kind of investigation, whether we have really cleansed this system of what I believe is such a corrosive level of special interest money that it is now distorting the processes by which this institution arrives at conclusions and I think is undermining our democratic institutions. I would hope that when the gentleman starts his hearings tomorrow and the committee deliberates this, that there would be some fundamental understanding by the Republicans that this is larger than their party or our party, this is about the survivability of this institution in terms of the confidence of the American public, and that is very important. That is very important because when this is all said and done, we have a lot of other issues where, if we do not have some level of confidence with the American public, the decisions about tax relief or the balanced budget or Medicare or Social Security were made without the corrosive influence of special interest money, then we are going to have a lot of trouble in terms of the future of this country and the future of this institution being able to make those difficult and tough decisions that are so necessary to our future. And I just want to commend my colleague from California for his tenacity in this argument. I can appreciate that it appears that, this is simply prepared to overwhelm you, they are prepared to go on with business, as they view, as usual. And I want to thank the gentleman on behalf of one that serves in this institution and one who tries to represent to his constituents the democratic process in this institution for your efforts to try to balance out this investigation so that when we are all done, we can be clear with the public that we have done our very best, that we have been the fairest we can possibly be, that we have been bipartisan and we have arrived at some support and conclusion. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we are about to enter into another round of debate on legislation to weaken one of our most popular environmental laws. Why? Because a foreign government demands it, and has threatened to kill thousands of dolphins if we don't. During the last Congress, a small number of environmental groups secretly negotiated an agreement with Mexico and other Latin American nations to change the United States law assuring our children that the tuna they eat in their school lunches wasn't caught at the expense of dolphins. That deal was then presented to the Congress as take it or leave it, no amendments allowed--because Mexico wanted it that way, because Mexico has charged that we are flouting the rules of international free trade. Is this where free trade principles have brought us? To a demand that we either open our markets to Mexican tuna or they'll slaughter even more dolphins? There has to be a better way. And there is. Today I am introducing the Dolphin-Safe Fishing Act, alternative legislation that would reward fishermen of other nations who choose not to kill dolphins by allowing their tuna to be sold in the United States under the famous ``Dolphin Safe'' label. Unlike other legislation on this issue, my bill would resolve the current trade dispute with Mexico without weakening United States laws. The Dolphin-Safe Fishing Act would allow tuna to be sold in the United States by nations whose fishing fleets continue to reduce dolphin deaths beyond last year's mortality level of just over 2,700 animals. By contrast, other legislation promoted by foreign tuna interests would authorize the deaths of more than 5,000 dolphins next year. Countries who wish to sell their tuna in our market would have to be certified by the Secretary of Commerce as not being involved in the transport of illegal drugs. The need for this provision has been established in recent articles in the Latin American and United States press and in testimony before Congress. For example: At least 275 tons of cocaine transit the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean every year. In July 1995, a Panamanian tuna vessel was caught off the coast of Peru with more than 12 tons of cocaine. This vessel was registered to a fishing company, Pesquera Azteca, owned by Colombian Cali Cartel drug trafficker Jose Castrillon Henao. In August 1996, a Honduran-registered fishing ship crewed by Colombians and Ecuadoreans was seized off the Colombian coast with 2 tons of cocaine In January 1997, a Mexican fishing vessel was intercepted off Mexico's Pacific coast carrying 3.5 tons of cocaine. In September 1996, Manuel Rodriguez Lopez, owner of Grupo Pesquero Rodriguez, which includes tuna companies in Baja California, Mexico, was placed under house arrest on charges of money laundering. Among the assets confiscated during his arrest were six tuna fishing vessels. Rodriguez also owns four other fishing companies believed to be involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. Given the recent vote of this body on decertification of Mexico as a partner in the war against drugs, and the ongoing press articles across the country about the ways in which free trade actually contributes to the sale of illegal drugs in the United States, we cannot allow legislation to pass this body that would further feed the Mexican drug trade. The Dolphin-Safe Fishing Act also strengthens the meaning of the dolphin-safe label by ensuring that no tuna caught by chasing, netting, killing, or seriously injuring marine mammals can be called ``dolphin safe''. H.R. 408, by contrast, would allow dolphins to be chased and netted without limits--a practice prohibited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act--and permit that tuna to be deceptively labelled ``safe'' for dolphins. The Dolphin-Safe Fishing Act specifically addresses by-catch problems in the tuna fishery by requiring that all threatened and endangered species, such as sea turtles, be released alive, and requires fishing nations to adopt a by-catch reduction program to reduce the harvest of nontarget species. Finally, the bill expresses the Sense of the Congress that each nation participating in the tuna fishery should contribute an equitable amount to the expenses of the Commission that overseas this fishery. Currently, the United States pays more than 90 percent of the expenses, although the United States has the smallest eastern Pacific tuna fishing fleet. The United States also houses the Commission, rent-free, in a waterfront property in La Jolla, CA, which would generate approximately $500,000 annually for the Treasury. The Dolphin-Safe Fishing Act is supported by a coalition of more than 80 environmental consumer protection, and labor organizations, including the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Public Citizen, the National Consumers League, Humane Society of the United States, the National Family Farm Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International, and Clean Water Action. The Dolphin-Safe Fishing Act is the responsible way to respond to concerns about the tuna trade, and I urge my colleagues to get the facts before they support any other legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, a few minutes ago I objected to agreeing to taking up the Suspension Calendar for tomorrow. The reason I did so is not because I object to the bills that were on the Suspension Calendar; I did so because I object to business as usual in this House, especially when business as usual means that week after week this House comes back to little or no business that is important to the American public. We come back not for the budget, we come back not for children's health care, and most importantly, we come back not to deal with campaign finance reform. Yet every day the American public have new revelations given to them about the White House, about Congress, about the Senate, about the House of Representatives, about people with enough money getting access that no other American can possibly conceive of having, with powerful Members of the House and powerful Members of the Senate offering access for money, offering the ability to sit on inside councils for money, offering the ability to talk to Cabinet officials for money. It has got to stop. Today we see in The New York Times an overwhelming majority of Americans want the corrosive, corrupting campaign finance system changed, but they do not believe that Congress is serious about it. We are going to continue to object to this kind of do-nothing agenda and an agenda that fails to respond to the needs of the public on campaign finance reform.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object because I think that the schedule that once again the House is witnessing this week, in light of some very important problems that are pressing for the Nation and for this institution, first and foremost being campaign finance reform and, second, obviously for the people we represent, the health care coverage for children, I object to that request.