[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.

                          ____________________