[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1347-H1352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES ON
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1997, OR THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 107 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 107
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on
Wednesday, April 9, 1997, or on Thursday, April 10, 1997, for
the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the
rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the
minority leader or his designee on the designation of any
matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from
Fairport, NY [Ms. Slaughter] and pending that, I yield myself such time
as I may consume. All time that I am yielding is for debate purposes
only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order at any time on
Wednesday, April 9, 1997, or on Thursday, April 10, 1997, today and
tomorrow, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend
the rules. The rule further requires the Speaker or his designee to
consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of
any matter for consideration pursuant to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, clause 1 of House rule 27
allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Mondays
and Tuesdays. The majority attempted to work with the minority to reach
a unanimous-consent agreement to allow suspensions today and tomorrow.
However, there was, unfortunately, an objection to that request. Absent
a unanimous-consent agreement, a rule is necessary to allow suspensions
on these days.
Mr. Speaker, this is a totally noncontroversial rule. As many Members
on both sides of the aisle have said over the 1-minute period this
morning, they want to see us begin moving ahead with our work. We want
to do that. We want to take up these measures that could be considered
under suspension of the rules.
Mr. Speaker, this rule itself is noncontroversial. It requires
consultation with the minority, so I hope very much that we can move as
expeditiously as possible to pass this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat this rule
and the previous question. The rule under consideration serves no
purpose, other than to allow the majority to require the Members of the
body to return to the floor of this House day after day, all week long,
to vote on measures which are noncontroversial and undeserving of an
entire week's debate, particularly when so many more valuable and
worthwhile bills languish unattended.
I can understand why the majority needs this rule, because it is a
fig leaf. They are hoping if it passes they will have coverage they
need to conceal the utter lack of any legislative agenda so they can
drag out the consideration of a few minor bills and make this look like
a work week. This rule is downright disrespectful, not just to the time
of the honorable Members of the body, but to the voters we represent
and their tax dollars.
It costs the taxpayers of this country $288,000 to bring all of us
back to Washington this week, and for what? In the 105th Congress, we
have worked less than 4 weeks' work, that is about a week a month, we
are 4 months into this session, and that, considering the work week of
the average American, is pretty disrespectful to them.
I am only one Member of this body, and a member of the minority at
that, but I have a better agenda myself than the leadership of the
House does. For example, one of the top priorities of the American
people is campaign finance reform. Where is the leadership on this
issue? They do not have a bill, but I do.
Last week the Federal Communications Commission voted out a rule that
gives the new digital spectrum licenses available to broadcast
stations. It has been widely suggested by such leaders as Senators
McCain and Feingold, journalists like Walter Cronkite and David Broder,
industry leaders like Rupert Murdoch and Barry Diller, and none other
than President Clinton, that in exchange for the new spectrum rights
the broadcasters should be required to provide free television time to
political candidates.
Coincidentally, I have a bill, the Fairness in Political Advertising
Act, that would condition station licensing on making available free
broadcast time for political advertising.
[[Page H1348]]
My bill also includes a requirement that candidates who accept free
time must use that time themselves speaking directly into the camera,
and I believe it makes them directly accountable for the statements
that are made in their campaigns. I hope it will cut down on the
negative campaigning that has become the norm.
I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me why my bill continues to
languish in the committee while we have no business on the floor and we
could be considering legislation. The fund-raising scandals currently
splashed across the Nation's newspapers have forced campaign finance
reform to the top of the political agenda, but we have no action here.
It is a shame that we are missing this opportunity to enact worthwhile
and viable reform, particularly on such an important and timely issue.
On another front, we are fast approaching the anniversary of the
Oklahoma City bombing, but 2 years later domestic terrorism thrives.
Criminal bombings have doubled since 1988. We have a duty in Congress
to keep explosive materials out of the wrong hands. I have a bill that
would do just that. It would require Federal permits for all explosive
purchases, mandate a nationwide background check for these permits. It
would increase penalties for those who violate the Federal explosive
law. We cannot afford not to pass this legislation as we approach this
tragic anniversary, but it languishes out there somewhere while we do
nothing.
Another pressing issue that Congress should be considering is making
sure our laws keep pace with the astounding pace of scientific
discovery in genetics. Time and again my constituents tell me they are
worried about losing their health insurance. They are particularly
worried that new technologies, like genetic testing, will open up new
avenues for discrimination in health insurance and enable insurers to
determine who is predisposed to a particular disorder and use that
information to deny or raise the rates on their health insurance.
I have sponsored legislation that would prevent that being used
against the person. It simply prevents the companies from using the
information to cancel, deny, refuse to renew, change the premiums,
terms or conditions of health insurance. This is so important to people
in America now. We are concerned that people do not want to know the
information vital to their lives because of the fear they have of
losing their health insurance. Indeed, it might even bring a stop to
research. If we do not pass legislation to protect Americans against
this kind of discrimination, there will be dire consequences.
There are other considerations as well. Our constituents are asking
what has gone wrong with our judicial system that allows repeat sexual
offenders to revolve in and out of prison. Sexual predators and serial
rapists continue to drift through our communities, circumventing local
penal codes that vary widely by State.
Congress has a responsibility to address the issue by passing a bill
that would put an end to the cycle of violence. The Sexual Predators
Act is a measure I wrote that would do just that. It allows for the
Federal prosecution of rapes and serial sexual assaults committed by
repeat offenders, requires that repeat offenders automatically be
sentenced to life in prison without parole.
I authored this bill to give local law enforcement the option of
pursuing Federal prosecution to ensure that these predators, who often
cross State lines, remain in jail, since many States have far less
punishment available under their own laws. Instead of letting sexual
predators out on the street to prey again, tough and certain punishment
is required at the national level. No man, woman, or child in America
should have to live in fear of a serial rapist or habitual child
molester.
Enacting legislation is our business here. I know one of the previous
speakers this morning had said better we should all be home having town
meetings. But my people in my district, the 28th District of New York,
expect me to be down here working for my paycheck. They are aware of
the fact that it costs $288,000 to bring us back to Congress every week
because I have told them that. They wonder where in the world the
legislation is.
The things that are on their mind are what are we going to do, how
are we going to keep our health insurance? What is happening to health
care? What about my child? Is it going to have the child care it needs?
What are you doing down there to make sure education stays strong?
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated today, and I hope
it is, and I certainly urge my colleagues to vote for its defeat, if it
is defeated, I will offer an amendment that would require the House to
consider campaign finance reform before Memorial Day recess, May 31, so
a final campaign finance reform bill can be sent to President Clinton
before July 4. I think that is the least we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say to my friend, the gentlewoman from New
York, that I very much appreciate her enlightening the House on her
legislative agenda for the year, and to say there are many very
interesting proposals that she offers. Frankly, there are some
solutions that I think are worthy of consideration as we move through
the committee process.
Let me say, as far as where we are today, I believe that we need to
recognize that there are measures that we hope to bring up under
suspension of the rules that deal with the veterans of this country.
There is a great interest in a bipartisan way to see us move ahead with
the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, and the other
suspension which we are hoping to bring up today, if we can move ahead
with this rule, is the American Samoan Development Act of 1997.
I know committees are working, and they are trying to deal with many
of the very important issues that my friend raised. It is my hope we
will be able to just as quickly as possible get to those items, as well
as campaign finance reform.
{time} 1145
I have introduced my own campaign finance reform bill, which I think
is very worthy of consideration. Actually, I have not introduced it
yet. I am crafting it now and will be introducing it in the not too
distant future. I hope we will be able to consider it. But we should
look at a wide range of areas.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
I do not think anyone on our side wants to denigrate the importance
of the veterans bill or the Samoan development bill. My question is,
why did we not do them yesterday? We are not objecting to doing those
bills, but Monday and Tuesday are the regular suspension days. We
hardly worked ourselves into a lather yesterday.
Our question is, given these important bills, why did we not do them
on the regular suspension day rather than have to do an extraordinary
procedure to take them up today?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, we have just returned
from the Easter work period, and we usually have a travel day there
following.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were voting.
Mr. DREIER. After 5, it was after 5 so the Members could travel on
Tuesday. That was the reason that we proceeded with the suspensions.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, we had two debates on substantive issues. We did
have one very substantive bill yesterday, but some people in the
industry affected complained, the private mortgage insurance bill, so
that got pulled lest their feelings be hurt, much less their profits.
We were through voting by about 20 after 5. Another two votes would
have added 10 minutes.
I understand we had 2 weeks off. Is there some implicit notion that
we have to have a decompression chamber, that after 2 weeks off the
Members will get the legislative bends if they have to deal with three
or four bills in 1 day?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that way. Frankly, everyone
cannot handle it quite as well as my friend from Massachusetts.
[[Page H1349]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to gentleman from
Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Well, as Ronald Reagan used to say, let me just say to
my good friend from Claremont, CA, one would think he is the State
Department, he is being so diplomatic. Unfortunately, I do not have
that kind of attribute myself, so I will be a little more blunt. I
really am concerned about people standing up here and talking about
campaign finance reform. When I go home and I go to a hockey game and
there are 6,000 people in the stands, not once over this winter has
anybody mentioned campaign finance reform.
What they did mention is that we ought to be enforcing the laws down
there and what are all these illegal contributions that are coming in
from the Chinese and from other places. I hear a lot about that.
I also hear a lot about people that are concerned about their jobs,
and some of them are former members of the armed services. They are
veterans now. They are concerned about a bill we have got on the
calendar right here today. It happens to be a heck of a lot more
important than campaign finance reform. This bill is H.R. 240. It is
the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997 that we have been
trying to get through this House now for a number of years.
While I am talking about that, let me also refer to an article by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Floyd Spence]. It is called the
National Security Report, U.S. Defense Budget, Walking the Tightrope
Without a Net.
Attached to it is a story that was in the Washington Post on April 9.
I do not even know what day that is. I have lost track of the time. But
this one says: Military forces are near breaking point, GOP report
charges.
Let me tell my colleagues I just got back from a place called Bosnia,
and I can say that we have some serious problems in this country today.
We have got a problem with maintaining the commissioned officers in our
military today. We have a problem in maintaining the noncommissioned
officers in this military today because they are afraid there is no
more opportunity out there for an honorable career in the military. Why
not?
I see the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] sitting back there, one
of the finest Members of this body. He can stand up here and tell us
the same thing, we are letting our military budget go back to what it
was back in the 1970's, when we were losing all of our military
personnel, because they could not afford to stay in the military
because their families were on welfare. Their families were on food
stamps. These are the kinds of things we ought to be debating. I will
include these articles for the Record.
Let me get back to the bill that this rule makes in order. Again, it
is the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. Mr. Speaker, I am going
to tell my colleagues there are some disturbing trends in this country
and in this very Government of ours with regard to veterans employment.
It is hard for me to believe and impossible to understand, but American
veterans are actually discriminated against when it comes to finding
jobs in this country but especially in our Government. If my colleagues
do not believe it, just go out and ask any number of them like I do at
the hockey games I was just referring to.
That is why this bill is so terribly important, in order to impress
upon the private sector the importance of hiring our Nation's service
men and women. It is critical that we start with this very Federal
Government and our own House, that means the employees of this
Congress. This bill does that by putting some real teeth to the
veterans preference laws already on the books so that when it comes to
hiring, promotions and reductions in force, managers and supervisors
are going to think twice before they try to get rid of the veterans,
the few that we have.
That is because this bill makes failure to comply with veterans
preference laws a prohibited personnel practice. These managers will be
putting their own jobs at risk. What about our own House and the
Congress? Well, this bill finally expands veterans preferences to
nonpolitical jobs in the Congress. But not only that, it expands it to
the nonpolitical jobs at the White House and to certain jobs in the
judiciary branch as well.
More and more so, this Government has been suffering without the
invaluable experience and background of American veterans and what they
have to offer. This bill will put an end to that by giving our men and
women in uniform a fighting chance when it comes to finding a Federal
job. Can you imagine that? They do not even have a fighting chance
today.
That is necessary because every time a young person enlists in the
military, they are doing a service for the country that places them at
a disadvantage on the pay scale relative to their peers. For instance,
if a young 18-year-old boy or girl enlists in the military, and he goes
on to serve 3 or 4 years and then his peer goes to college and serves,
and finishes the same 3 or 4 years getting a degree, that young man or
woman who served in the military is always 4 years behind on the
success scale of opportunity, of the ability to be promoted.
When they leave the military, it is critical that we follow through
our guarantees like veterans preferences in order to ensure that we
continue to attract the best all-voluntary military in the world. I
emphasize all-voluntary military. For the last 15 years or so, we do
not have a draft. We depend on an all-voluntary military, attracting
young men and women from all across the spectrum to serve in our
military.
Take our young men and women in Bosnia whom I just mentioned a few
minutes ago whom I had the privilege of visiting last Thursday and
witnessing the very tremendous job that they are doing under very, very
difficult circumstances today. They have committed themselves to
serving their country overseas, many of them reservists who put their
civilian lives on hold. This bill includes my own personal bill, H.R.
665, that makes all of those service men and women in Bosnia eligible
for veterans preferences when it comes to finding Government jobs. When
they come back out of Bosnia, they are going to be full qualified
veterans having served in a combat situation and therefore they get
veterans preferences.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the good work of the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica], the chairman, who will be here in a few minutes in
moving this bill to the floor today and urge all the Members to support
it. Let us send an overwhelming message to the Senate, the American
people and, most importantly, our military personnel that we treasure
what they do and we take very seriously the commitments we have made to
them when they return from civilian life.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I include for the
Record the articles to which I referred:
[From the National Security Report, April 1997]
U.S. Defense Budget: Walking the Tightrope Without a Net
The Clinton administration's defense budget request of
$265.3 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 represents a 2
percent real decrease from current (FY 1997) spending. As
such, it continues a 13-year-long trend of real defense
spending decline and it marks a 38 percent real reduction in
spending from defense budgets in the mid-1980s.
The FY 1998 defense budget request represents 3.1 percent
of the nation's gross domestic product, down more than 50
percent from the 1985 level of 6.4 percent. The FY 1998
defense budget request, when measured in constant dollars,
represents the smallest defense budget since 1950.
Indeed, cuts from the defense budget have provided a
substantial contribution to reductions in the federal deficit
in the 1990s. In fact, defense cuts account for the vast
majority of deficit reduction to date that is attributable to
the discretionary budget. Based on the president's FY 1998
budget, between FY 1990-2000, entitlements and domestic
discretionary outlays will increase substantially, while
outlays for defense will decrease 32 percent. So the trend
continues.
From the standpoint of military capability, the
administration's FY 1998 defense budget request perpetuates
the mismatch between defense strategy and resources--the
widening gap between the forces and budgets required by
the national military strategy and the forces actually
paid for by the defense budget. In January 1997, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the
president's defense budget to be underfunded by
approximately $55 billion over the course of the next five
years. However, many independent analyses, including that
of the General Accounting Office, assess the shortfall to
be much greater.
The FY 1998 defense budget request also reflects the
administration's continued pattern of cutting long-term
investment funding necessary for the modernization of aging
[[Page H1350]]
equipment in order to pay for near-term readiness shortfalls.
The FY 1998 procurement request of $42.6 billion is actually
less than current (FY 1997) procurement spending levels and
approximately 30 percent below the procurement spending level
identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as necessary to
modernize even the smaller military of the 1990s. Since 1995,
the administration has vowed to end the ``procurement
holiday,'' but its plan to increase modernization spending is
skewed heavily toward the later years of the five-year
defense program, with the bulk of the proposed increases
projected to occur beyond the end of the President's second
term in office.
The inability to field new systems is highlighted by the
administration's lack of funding for missile defenses. Six
years after the Gulf War, which demonstrated both the
strategic and military importance of effective ballistic
missile defenses, the administration continues to shortchange
spending for such programs, cutting the national missile
defense program to protect the American people from the
threat of ballistic missile attack by over $300 million from
current (FY 1997) spending levels.
One of the primary reasons modernization spending continues
to be reduced and used as a ``billpayer'' for shortfalls
elsewhere in the defense budget is the administration's
persistent underestimation of readiness and operational
requirements. The FY 1998 defense budget request includes
$2.9 billion less for procurement and $5.2 billion more for
operations and maintenance (O&M) spending than was projected
for FY 1998 by the administration just last year. This
miscalculation results from the Pentagon's underestimation of
its own infrastructure and overhead costs as well as from the
continuing high and costly pace of manpower-intensive
peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.
The diversion of troops, equipment, and resources from
necessary day-to-day training in order to support these
ongoing operations means that even those O&M funds being
requested are not purchasing the kind of readiness central to
the execution of the national military strategy.
Although the administration contends that the post-Cold War
defense drawdown--a drawdown that has cut the nation's
military by one-third since 1990--is nearly complete, the FY
1998 defense budget request reduces both the Navy and Air
Force below the personnel levels mandated by law and below
the levels called for by the national military strategy.
While military forces are shrinking to dangerously low
levels, the pace and duration of contingency operations are
increasing. These conflicting trends are hurting military
readiness, are eroding quality of life, and are certainly not
conductive to maintaining a high quality, all-volunteer force
in the long run.
____
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 9, 1997]
Military Forces Are Near ``Breaking Point,'' GOP Report Charges
(By Bradley Graham)
Increased demands on a reduced U.S. military to engage in
peace operations and other noncombat missions have stretched
units to ``the breaking point,'' according to a House
Republican report on the condition of American forces to be
released today.
While congressional warnings about a growing military
readiness problem have sounded for several years, the new
study provides the most extensive anecdotal evidence so far
about the toll on American forces of frequent post-Cold War
deployments, long tours away from home, personnel shortages,
and inadequate pay and living conditions.
``Indicators of a long-term systemic readiness problem are
far more prevalent today than they were in 1994,'' said the
report issued by Rep. Floyd Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the
House National Security Committee, after a seven-month study
by his staff. ``Declining defense budgets, a smaller force
structure, fewer personnel and aging equipment, all in the
context of an increase in the pace of operations, are
stretching U.S. military forces to the breaking point.''
Pentagon leaders, citing official readiness indicators,
have insisted that U.S. forces remain as prepared for battle
as ever.
For several years, the Clinton administration has listed
readiness as its top priority in apportioning the defense
budget, setting a historical high in operational and
maintenance spending per soldier.
Some defense experts have accused Republican legislators of
fanning talk of a readiness crisis for political ends--to
justify increases in defense spending, forestall more troop
reductions and embarrass the Clinton administration. They
contend that any strains in the force could be relieved
simply by more selective and efficient management of
deployments.
But the House report, which was drafted without the
participation of committee Democrats, describes a pervasive
erosion of operational conditions and combat training. It
says the quality of military life is deteriorating ``to
the point where a growing number of talented and dedicated
military personnel and their families are questioning the
desirability of a life in uniform.'' And it says military
equipment is aging prematurely due to extended use and
reduced maintenance.
The report faults the Pentagon's system for tracking
readiness as flawed and incomplete.
The system, which is being revised by Defense Department
officials, has focused mostly on whether units possess the
required resources and training for wartime missions and
includes little provision for measuring such factors as
morale or deployment rates.
The official view of how troops are faring, the report
asserts, contrasts markedly with what committee staff members
found in visits to more than two dozen installations and over
50 units in the United States and Europe.
``Doing more with less may be the military's new motto,''
says the report, ``but it is certainly not a sustainable
strategy, nor is it conducive to ensuring the long-term
viability of an all-volunteer force.''
With the Pentagon in a middle of a major review of U.S.
defense needs, the report cautions that any attempt to shrink
the force further will ``surely exacerbate the readiness
problems that are identified in this report.''
Since the waning days of the Cold War, American forces have
dropped from 2.1 million to 1.45 million service members,
while the number of deployments to such places as Bosnia,
Haiti and Somalia has risen sharply.
Although only a small percentage of all U.S. military
forces is involved in these missions at any given time, the
extended duration and frequency of the deployments have
magnified their impact.
The combination of lower troop numbers and more numerous
deployments has led to shortages particularly of mid-grade,
noncommissioned officers, the report says. To cover
gaps, service members often are assigned to jobs for which
they lack the requisite training and experience, the
report adds.
Moreover, deployment times too often exceed the 120-days-
per-year maximum set by the services, the report says. To
make ends meet, those units that do deploy frequently
scavenge parts and people from other units, creating
``troughs of unreadiness' in the force that are ``deeper and
of longer duration'' than before, the report adds.
Particularly, troubling, the report says, is an evident
drop in the amount and quality of training, caused by funding
shortages and reduced opportunities to train because units
are on deployment or covering for units that are.
``The widespread belief of trainers interviewed at the
services' premier high-intensity training sites--the National
Training Center at Fort Irwin, the Marine Corps' Air Ground
Combat Center at Twentynine Palms and the Air Force's Air
Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base--is that units are
arriving less prepared than they used to and are not as
proficient when they complete their training as in the
past,'' the report states.
Although military retention rates remain relatively high,
the report says these official statistics cloud the fact that
the ``best of the best'' are getting out. According to an
internal Army survey quoted in the report: ``Job satisfaction
is down and about two-thirds of leaders say organizations are
working longer hours . . . The force is tired and concerned
about the uncertainty of the future . . . Morale is low at
both the individual and unit level.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for
yielding me the time.
Once again today Democrats are standing up for campaign finance
reform. We will vote in a short while to defeat the previous question
on this rule in order to bring up before this body campaign finance
reform so we can have it on the floor of the House by Memorial Day.
This will be the third vote we are taking on campaign finance reform in
this Congress. There was a vote on opening day of the Congress and
another on March 13.
I might add that not a single Member from the other side of the aisle
has voted for reform yet. But I am hopeful that through this process of
raising this issue on the previous question on rules, we will slowly
see Members of the other side decide that we need to have a public
debate on this most important issue.
Our way of financing political campaigns in this country today is
broken. I think the American people know it. Although some have
proposed spending even more on campaigns, the American people, I think,
just think the opposite. More than 9 out of 10 believe too much money
is being spent on political campaigns.
So we need to fix the system and we need to limit the amount of money
in these campaigns. We need to stop the negative advertising. We need
to get Americans voting again and believing in the system. The vote
today is not about a particular bill. There are many different vehicles
out there, some of them very good, or a solution. It is about setting
up a process to debate campaign finance reform, to make sure it moves
beyond the closed room, the back rooms, the locked doors, and out into
the open where the American people can understand and learn and
participate in one of the great debates that I think we are engaged in
this year.
[[Page H1351]]
What we are really talking about is reinvigorating the political
process. Right now Americans do not think their vote counts. They are
sick and tired of what they see, what they see going on, and they feel
a powerlessness to do anything about it.
We need to change that. We need to make democracy in this country
mean something once again, and we need to give people hope that they
can make a difference, that they can be a player, that they can feel
that their Government is working for them. There are a lot of good
ideas out there, and we are simply asking a chance to debate them.
For 4 months we have done nothing in this Congress. Oh, we have named
a few buildings after people. We have commended the Nicaraguans on
their election. We have expressed our respect for the Ten Commandments.
But we have done nothing to improve the lives of American working
families on health care, on education, on jobs. Real campaign finance
reform will make a difference. It is another one of the issues that the
public wants us to address.
So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote no on the previous
question in order to bring up campaign finance reform to the floor
before the Memorial Day recess.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say that it is very interesting to listen to the hue and cry
over campaign finance reform that comes from my friends on the other
side of the aisle. I stated that I have a measure that I am going to be
introducing in the not too distant future which would actually
encourage greater voter participation, an opportunity for them to
participate with campaign contributions.
The thing that troubles me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we are in a
position today where we do not have compliance with existing law, and
we as Republicans are very proud to stand up for enforcement of the
laws which have been flagrantly violated based on reports that we have
had in the media. That is what we as Republicans are doing from this
side of the aisle. I hope very much that we will be able to get to the
bottom of these tremendous abuses of present campaign finance law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I intend to support
veterans preferences. Four hundred and thirty-five Members of this
body, all of the Members who are here today, are going to vote for this
bill. That is not the issue. This is a noncontroversial item. It is
under a suspension calendar. We will vote without any bit of
controversy. Suspensions are usually noncontroversial. They are
considered on Mondays and Tuesdays in the House, so in fact we could
have considered this vote yesterday when we adjourned at something like
10 after 5 or 5:15. We could have done this yesterday.
We are going to try to defeat the previous question this morning in
an effort to be able to use our time in order to talk about campaign
finance reform legislation so that we can vote on what is a pressing
issue before the Memorial Day district work period.
It is hard to open a paper these days without reading about the lack
of accomplishments of this Congress, in fact the do-nothing Congress.
But the worst of it is that the Congress is doing nothing when the
issue of campaign finance reform cries out for action and early action
at that.
{time} 1200
Yes, let us continue on with the investigations, but what we in fact
do know is that the system is broken and that it needs to be fixed. Let
us have that discussion.
The 1996 elections broke all records for campaign spending: $2.7
billion. The Washington Post shows that 8 in 10 Americans agree that
money has, quote, too much influence on who wins elections. The amount
of money in politics disenchants the American people and tells
citizens, ordinary citizens in this country, that their votes are not
as important as fundraising dollars.
The record amounts spent in 1996 are a powerful argument for
meaningful limits on campaign spending. We need less money in politics,
not more. And if we are to achieve limits on campaign spending, we need
to act immediately, because every delay takes us closer to the next
election.
I doubt the American people want more money spent the way that the
Speaker would. Let us have the debate on campaign finance reform, and
let us just stop fooling around.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call upon my colleagues
to defeat the previous question and to bring an amendment to this floor
allowing a debate on the important issue of campaign finance reform.
Every person in America realizes the importance and necessity to
address our broken system of financing the election, and yet my
colleagues on the other side, the Republican majority, are planning no
hearings on this issue, no debate on this floor, and no votes to change
the way elections are paid for. It is a shame, and it is a disgrace.
There is too much money in the political process. We need to
recognize that there is too much money in the political process.
Members of Congress are forced to spend too much time chasing campaign
funds. Special interests and the wealthy interests have too much
influence. These are the problems that need to be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference between Democrats and
Republicans on campaign finance. Democrats believe there is too much
money in the political process. Republicans believe there is too
little. Let us have a debate on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Let the American people decide whether we need more or less money in
politics. We should put our votes on the board, let the American people
see, rather than bring us back to Washington week after week to vote on
do-nothing legislation.
Let us address the real problems confronting our Nation. Let us fix
our broken campaign finance laws. Defeat the previous question and let
the real and serious debate begin.
Maybe, just maybe, we should adjourn or recess the Congress and go
home for the next few days and visit our citizens, the people that sent
us here, like I did last week. Why come back here and vote on do-
nothing legislation? Now is the time to act. Defeat the previous
question.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this Congress I was 1 of
more than 100 Members of this House to ask that action occur during the
first 100 days of this Congress on the issue of campaign finance
reform.
Well, that period will expire next week. And what has happened during
those first 100 days on the issue of campaign finance reform? The same
thing that has happened on the hopes of reform for more health
insurance for children across this country, the same thing that has
happened with regard to the aspirations and needs of young people
across this country to get access to a college education.
What has happened on campaign finance reform during the first 100
days of this Congress is zero, zip, nada. Not a thing has occurred on
that or most of the other important issues that face America today.
Now, my distinguished colleague from California [Mr. Dreier], says
they have another approach. When it comes to campaign finance, they do
not want to legislate right now, they want to investigate. Well, I
agree that some investigations are in order. The only problem with Mr.
Dreier's approach is, they want to investigate everybody except this
House. They want to look at somebody else's house down the street.
They do not want to look here at the issues of the peddling of
campaign finance checks that have occurred on this floor and issues
that have arisen in connection with the raising of hundreds of millions
of dollars in funding this Congress, of special interest money that
dominates the elections in this Congress on both sides of the aisle.
No; they want to investigate someone else, get indignant, get upset,
make some speeches, but not do a thing about it.
This rule sets priorities, and I would say our veterans, who will
have 435
[[Page H1352]]
votes in favor of their bill in a few minutes, have as big a stake as
anybody else in seeing this system cleaned up.
It is time for this Congress to act. We waited in the last Gingrich
Congress 1\1/2\ years out of that 2 years before we ever even got a
chance to vote on the issue of campaign finance reform. That is why we
are going to keep raising this issue day after day, because we cannot
wait another 1\1/2\ years for action, and at that time it was some
convoluted position that even the Republicans could not support. It is
time for action and action by voting down this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say that it is very interesting to listen to this debate as it proceeds
on campaign finance reform. We are actually offering a rule here that
would allow us to consider suspensions today and tomorrow to deal with
veterans, American Samoa, assisted suicide, and yet the campaign debate
here, the debate has proceeded on the issue of campaign finance reform.
Since that has happened, I want to take a moment before I yield to my
friend from Texas, the majority whip, to talk about legislation I
mentioned during the 1-minute period that I hope we will be able to
have considered here. If we could get the President on board on it, it
would be very helpful, and, frankly, it is much more important to the
people whom I am honored to represent here and others from around the
country than campaign finance reform.
It happens to be the single most important family tax cut that we
could offer, and that is a reduction of the top rate on capital gains
from 28 percent to 14 percent. As of right now, we have 118 cosponsors.
Democrats and Republicans have joined, cosponsoring this.
I call it the most important family tax cut because it clearly will
increase the take-home wages of working Americans, on average, by
$1,500. Unlike many of the family tax cuts, which are temporary, some
of those that the President has proposed, this capital gains tax rate
reduction would be permanent, creating that boost for working
Americans. I hope very much that we are going to be able to proceed
with that measure, which also is critically important to our quest of a
balanced budget.
We want to bring about a reduction in the national debt and get us on
that glidepath toward a balanced budget. We know that unleashing the 7
to 8 trillion dollars that is locked in today, people who do not want
to sell their family farm, their small business, their home or other
appreciated asset because of the fact that that capital gains tax rate
is so high, that capital would be unleashed, if we could reduce that
rate from 28 to 14 percent, and would go a long way toward increasing
the flow of revenues to the Treasury, as it has done every single time
throughout this century.
Every shred of empirical evidence we have is that it will increase
the flow of revenues to the Treasury, going all the way back to
President Warren G. Harding, who, in 1921, under his Treasury
Secretary, Andrew Mellon, cut the top rate on capital. The flow of
revenues to the Treasury increased.
In 1961, when President Kennedy did it, the same thing happened; and
then when Ronald Reagan did it with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of
1981, we saw that increase.
Unfortunately, when we increase the tax on capital, we decrease the
flow of revenues to the Treasury. In 1978, when the capital gains tax
rate was reduced, we saw, from 1979 to 1987, a 500-percent increase in
the flow of revenues to the Treasury from $9 billion to $50 billion,
and it began to drop after the 1986 Tax Reform Act went in place.
So it seems to me we have a very important issue that I hope we can
address here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. DeLay], my dear friend.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. And he is so right about the real important things that we intend
to do in this 105th Congress, rather than play these games that are
being played around here.
It is amazing to me, the lack of shame that is expressed on this
floor, that the minority party, that used to be the grand majority
party for so many years, particularly since the last major campaign
finance reform was passed back in the late 1970's, I think 1976 or so,
had the majority of this House and the majority of the Senate and yet
did not bring any bills down. In fact, if they just passed this bill,
they could probably bring their campaign finance reform to the floor
under suspension.
Oh, I forgot; they do not have a campaign finance reform bill. They
are crying for campaign finance reform to come to the floor, but they
do not even have a bill.
What is happening here is something that is really serious, because
we want to hold hearings to look into what is serious. We have the
potential of having had in the last campaign our national security
compromised by foreign money being pushed into this country and trying
to manipulate our campaigns, and they are trying to change the subject
so that the American people will not focus on what is really happening
and what really happened in the campaign last year by this President
and by the Democratic National Committee. That is what is going on
here.
I just came back from 2 weeks in my district and holding town
meetings and meeting with my people. I did not travel anywhere. I
worked my district during the district work period, and I had one
person ask one question on campaign finance reform.
Now, the American people out there know exactly what is going on here
on the floor of the House, and, frankly, they are ashamed as to what is
going on on the floor of this House, trying to cover up what could be
potentially a national security problem brought on by breaking the
campaign finance laws that were reformed by this majority, by the
majority Democrat party back in the 1970's, and trying to cover it up
by talking about campaign finance reform here, and they do not even
have their own bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman
from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
The gentleman makes a very important point, that being, we are simply
calling for compliance with the present law that exists. And those on
the other side of the aisle are saying, well, let us change the law,
let us reform campaign finances, and that will address this hue and cry
that we are hearing out there from the American people; all they want
us to do is, the American people want us to comply with the laws that
exist today.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would also say that
they want us to do it before we look at whether laws have actually been
broken. And we all know the reason for that; it is strictly politics,
to cover up the fact that the national security of this country may
have been compromised.
____________________