[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1549-H1557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 112 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 112

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on 
     Wednesday, April 16, 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. LaTourette). 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 friend, the gentlewoman from Fairport, NY 
[Ms. Slaughter], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in a statement that is more prophetic than 
he might have imagined when he made it at the time, President Woodrow 
Wilson said,

       ``It's not far from the truth to say that Congress in 
     session is Congress on public exhibition, while Congress in 
     committee rooms is Congress at work.

  It is the work of Congress that we hope to accomplish with adoption 
of this rule. It makes in order at any time today, Wednesday, April 16, 
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.
  The bills that will be considered under suspension of the rules as a 
result of adopting this rule are noncontroversial and very narrowly 
tailored, thus making it impractical to bring them up under the order 
of business resolution from our Committee on Rules. However, scheduling 
them for consideration today is necessary to ensure that our colleagues 
are here to do very important committee work.
  The Committee on Banking and Financial Services is holding an 
important markup on public housing reform. The Committee on the Budget 
members are in important negotiations with the administration over the 
outlines of our balanced budget proposal. The Committee on Commerce is 
marking up the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments 
Act. Even our own Committee on Rules will have a hearing tomorrow on 
improving civility in the House, which is critical, as we all know, to 
the proper functioning of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, for those of our colleagues who are concerned with the 
pace and direction of our agenda in the House, adoption of this rule is 
a precondition to ensuring a productive and successful first session of 
the 105th Congress.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that for 2 years during 
the 104th Congress, we constantly heard complaints from our friends in 
the minority that the committee system was being bypassed to expedite 
major legislation. We now have the opportunity to let our committees 
deliberate openly and do their work, and they are able to have the full 
participation of the members of their committees.
  Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a totally noncontroversial rule. I 
hope that, unlike last week, we will proceed in a very, very amicable 
and noncontroversial way as we proceed with this. I urge adoption of 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule serves no purpose other than to require the 
Members of the body to spend another day voting on measures which are 
noncontroversial and which could easily have been disposed of on the 
regular suspension days of Monday and Tuesday. Meanwhile, the real 
business of the House remains neglected.
  As we all know, Federal law requires Congress to produce a budget 
resolution by April 15, 1997. That was yesterday. Well, yesterday came 
and went without the majority having even proposed a budget or holding 
a single committee vote on a budget. Nor has the majority taken any 
steps whatsoever toward enacting campaign finance reform.
  Our constituents might wonder what has Congress been spending its 
time on? Well, the answer is precious little. Today marks the end of 
the first 100 days of the 105th Congress. Yet the House has barely been 
in session. This year the House has taken 2 days off for every day it 
has worked. In fact, the House has been in session for only 33 of the 
first 100 days of this Congress. Essentially, we took 2 of the first 3 
months off. Hardworking families all over the country must look at us 
and wonder who we think we are. Is this really what we were elected to 
do?
  Since the 105th Congress began, more than 300,000 children have lost 
their private health insurance. Yet the majority has refused to act on 
legislation to help families get health coverage for their children. 
More than 200,000 students have dropped out of high school. But what is 
our leadership doing to improve public education? More than 1,000 
children have been killed, and yet the majority has yet to schedule any 
floor action for legislation on juvenile crime and drugs.
  This Congress took only 60 votes, that is 60, in the first quarter of 
1997, 60 votes in the first 90 days. Less than a vote a day, and that 
is counting all the votes on noncontroversial measures like those to 
honor democracy gains in Guatemala and Nicaragua and to thank former 
Secretary Warren Christopher for being Secretary of State and 11 votes 
for various States for voting term limits.
  Now, I am not saying that those measures were unworthy of our votes, 
only that they do not really constitute heavy lifting. Yet the majority 
insists on dragging out for consideration these noncontroversial 
measures day after day, week after week.
  Mr. Speaker, why could we not have considered the suspension bills 
scheduled for today on Monday or Tuesday of this week? Why are we not 
using the remainder of the week to work on more meaningful legislation 
like a budget resolution and campaign finance reform?
  The rule is disrespectful of the voters we represent and their tax 
dollars. The majority spent a lot of time on the floor this week 
talking about taxes. Well, I remind my colleagues, as I did last week 
when this House considered an identical rule, that it costs the 
taxpayers of the country $280,000 each week to bring all of us back to 
Washington. We ought to at least give them their money's worth and get 
on with the business of passing a budget and enacting campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, 
and if the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an 
amendment that would require the House to consider campaign finance 
reform before Memorial Day, May 31, so that a final campaign finance 
reform bill can be sent to President Clinton before July 4.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, here we are, another suspension day. This is 
one body that just seems to be in constant suspension. I do not know 
exactly what that means except nothing is being done. We have got some 
significant bills, as the gentlewoman just said. This Congress has 
passed bills honoring Warren Christopher for his service as Secretary 
of State, commending Guatemala for possibly venturing toward democracy; 
a whole list of things. Yes,

[[Page H1550]]

they are nice things and they are important, but they are not the guts 
of legislation.
  So what exactly are we here today for, Mr. Speaker? So that we can 
approve another suspension day doing the same kind of lifting we have 
been doing? If this were a weight lifting class, I think it would 
definitely fall under lightweight training. There is no bulking up that 
is going on around here. There is no heavy lifting taking place. There 
is not even weight training. It is not cardiovascular. I am trying to 
figure out what the exercise regime is in this Congress.
  But I will tell Members what is not being done when there is no heavy 
lifting going on in this Congress: There is no Medicare that is being 
restructured that is supposed to go belly up by the year 2001. There 
are no education opportunities being created for the many hundreds of 
thousands of young people that are trying to get to college. There is 
no pension reform taking place for the thousands, actually millions of 
Americans who are counting on that pension when they retire. There is 
no work being done on the budget.
  Oh, the budget. Budget negotiations are taking place, I heard. In 
fact, the previous speaker on the other side talked about the outline 
of a balanced budget deal. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that is all there 
is from the Republican leadership, is an outline because they have not 
brought a budget down. Yes, I know that Democrats did not bring it down 
on April 15 either, but I also know that Democrats had a budget. The 
interesting thing is that in these budget negotiations it is the White 
House negotiating with itself.
  ``How much do you want to cut Medicare, Mr. President?''
  ``Well, I'll cut it this much, because they do not have a budget to 
cut from.'' Yet here we are today in another suspension day where we 
deal only with noncontroversial bills.
  Let me suggest something that could be worked on, and that is why I 
will vote to defeat the previous question. How about campaign finance 
reform? Just as there have been significant allegations against the 
Democratic Party, so have there been significant allegations against 
the Republican Party as well. No side comes out with clean hands on 
this. In fact today I saw in the newspaper, in one of the local papers, 
allegations against yet another Republican leader. And so it seems to 
me that campaign finance reform could be worked on today. But if it 
cannot be worked on today, could we work on it tomorrow or perhaps 
could we set a goal that there will be a campaign finance reform bill 
on this floor by Memorial Day? That would be a Memorial Day worth 
memorializing.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, why are we doing more suspensions? Because there 
is not anything else to do, because the leadership will not bring 
anything to the floor. So let me suggest something: Medicare, 
education, balanced budget, pension reform and campaign finance reform. 
Campaign finance reform by Memorial Day. That is why I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can get 
that agenda up.
  If my colleagues want to do some real heavy lifting around here, we 
are going to have to defeat the previous question. Otherwise, we are 
just into cardiovascular.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Smyrna, GA [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from California for yielding me this time. This is really amazing, Mr. 
Speaker, to hear folks on the other side get up here and beat their 
chests and be so sanctimonious about no work being done. One time I had 
a lady from Georgia who called our office and complained that I was not 
earning my pay because I was not on the floor of the House where she 
could see me on C-SPAN. I explained to her, to her satisfaction at 
least, and maybe some folks on the other side will understand this now, 
the bulk of the work of the Congress of the United States takes place 
in two institutions with which folks on the other side may not be 
familiar, committees and subcommittees. There are today, just as one 
example, Mr. Speaker, House committees and subcommittees debating and 
considering very specific measures of legislation and very important 
issues for the American people so that they can indeed be brought to 
the floor with a minimum of rancor and debate, and so forth, on the 
floor: Trade with Europe, commodity exchange, the appropriations bills, 
the small business and economic development, more appropriations bills, 
the ballistic missile programs, arms control, employment programs, 
public housing markup, storage tanks involving the public safety, OSHA, 
nursing home fraud, EPA rule-making, postal service reform, refugees, 
bankruptcy system, defense review, patent legislation. The list goes on 
and on and on.
  So it is rather disingenuous or evidences a great ignorance for what 
goes on here in the House for folks on the other side to beat their 
chests and complain about nothing being done in the Congress. There is 
in fact a great deal of work being done where it ought to be done, and 
that is in our House committees and subcommittees.
  If I am not mistaken also, Mr. Speaker, these are the very same folks 
who in the last Congress complained and complained and complained and 
complained about us moving too quickly, doing too much without 
deliberating. And here we are trying to accommodate their wishes from 
the last Congress and be more deliberative, work these matters through 
the committee, and what happens? Not surprisingly, we get whipsawed and 
we get criticized for being more deliberative, working through the 
committees, and so forth, where there is a great deal more opportunity 
for debate and input on both sides of the aisle.
  Then we have, Mr. Speaker, this smoke screen of, oh, we must have 
campaign finance reform. One really has to wonder, with the daily 
allegations that are coming out in the media concerning this 
administration, one wonders where the notion that clean hands are 
involved here. I mean, good heavens, Mr. Speaker, with the allegations 
that are coming out that require, that cry out for study, which the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is trying to do but for, 
of course, the intransigence on the other side, which delayed for days 
and days and days and weeks the funding of that committee.
  There is a great deal that does need to be done to look into these 
allegations, to get to the bottom of it, to clean this mess up, and one 
has to wonder whether this effort to say, oh, we have to have the 
matter of campaign finance reform generally brought to the floor by 
Memorial Day, rather a strange day it seems to me to do campaign 
finance reform, that this may be a smoke screen and an effort to divert 
the public's attention from the very serious allegations arising out of 
this administration's activities and the efforts by this body through 
its Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, exercising its proper 
jurisdiction, to get to the bottom of those things.
  That is what would be very, very enlightening and very positive to 
hear from the other side about, what can we do about the tremendous 
current erosion of our political system and the public's faith and 
confidence in that system by the allegations involving the sale of our 
election process to foreign governments, foreign individuals, 
individuals with a lot of money, and so forth. That is really where the 
focus ought to be, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time this Congress that the 
Democrats are demanding that we have a vote on campaign finance reform, 
and as my colleagues have said on our side of the aisle already this 
morning, we will once again vote to defeat the previous question in 
order to bring up campaign finance reform to the floor of this House so 
we can have a bill that eventually will reach the President's desk by 
the designated time that he requested, the Fourth of July.
  Now let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
the American people are watching what we do on this issue. We have had 
votes on this campaign finance reform on the 7th of January, the 
opening day of this

[[Page H1551]]

Congress, on the 13th of March, on April 9, and not one Member on this 
side of the aisle has joined us in support in bringing to the floor 
this debate.
  We are not asking for a specific vehicle to be debated. There are 
many vehicles, some of them from this side of the aisle, that have 
merit, some from this side of the aisle; but what we are asking for is 
a debate. Our way of financing political campaigns in this country is 
broken, and the American people know it, and although some have 
proposed spending even more on campaigns, as the Speaker has suggested, 
the American people think that we ought to do just the opposite. More 
than 9 out of 10 believe that too much money is spent on political 
campaigns.
  We need to fix the system, we need to limit the amount of money in 
political campaigns, we need to stop the negative advertising, and we 
need to get people voting again.
  In 1996, I had 20,000 fewer people voting in my election, in the 
Presidential election, than we had 4 years earlier in 1992. Something 
is happening. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Speaker, our Nation's 
political discussion has gotten disconnected from the American people. 
They no longer see the link between their lives and politics, the link 
between their work and the forces controlling our economy and the link 
between their community and the challenges that face our Nation, and as 
a result, if we talk to them, they will tell us they feel powerless, 
they feel frustrated, they feel alienated.
  We need to have a debate about the fundamental nature of politics in 
this country, questions like what is the role of our Government, what 
is the meaning of citizenship in a modern democracy, what is political 
participation? Let us have that debate.
  As my colleagues know, it is no secret why the Republican leadership 
refuses to schedule campaign finance reform. The wealthy donors who 
contribute to the Republican Party want tax breaks. The Speaker just 
the other day said we ought to do away with $300 billion of tax 
giveaways to the wealthiest 5 percent of people in our country, and 
according to an article I have here in the Washington Times, last week 
they have told the Republican leadership, the wealthiest individuals 
and contributors, that they can forget, the party can forget, about 
more money unless tax cuts are enacted.
  Now, that is what is going on here. Unless they get these big huge 
tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals in this country at the expense, 
I might add, of the rest of America, the other 90, 95 percent who need 
health care for their kids, who need educational tax breaks so they can 
afford to send their kids to college or to have a program like school 
to work where 70 percent of our kids do not go on to finish college and 
they participate in our society and our economy, unless they get 
theirs, then they are not going to contribute again to their party. So 
instead of meeting the needs of working families, this leadership on 
this side of the aisle would rather cater to the wealthy special 
interests.
  We need to get back on track. We need to correct the situation that 
exists today in this country. We need to erect firewalls between the 
money and the politics in this country.
  So the vote today is not about a particular bill, as I said, or a 
solution. It is about setting up a process to debate campaign finance 
reform. There are a lot of good ideas out there, and we simply are 
asking that we have a chance to debate these ideas.
  Now my friend from West Virginia suggested that this has been a 
Congress that we really have not done much. Oh, we have praised the 
Nicaraguans on their election, and we have allowed the armored car 
people to go across the border with weapons. As my colleagues know, we 
have done things like that. We have praised the Ten Commandments. But 
we really have not done the work of this Congress. We have not put a 
budget out, the budget deadline passed the other day, no budget, no 
proposed budget by my Republican colleagues, no campaign finance 
reform, no questions that deal with the real issues, no movement on the 
issues that affect people who are struggling to make it for their 
families today in America, nothing on education moving, nothing for the 
10 million American kids who do not have health insurance in this 
country, and that is increasing, by the way, by 3,300 each day; 3,300 
American children lose their health insurance because their family 
loses their insurance. Nothing on that.
  So I say let us use this time productively, let us use it to clean up 
our political system, and let us get on with the task of making people 
believe in their Government once again.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the remarks of my very good friend.
  The fact of the matter is, if we look at the need for campaign 
finance reform, I think virtually everyone recognizes that some change 
needs to take place in the area of campaign finance reform. I strongly 
support it. I am in the process of drafting legislation right now which 
will empower the voter to have greater knowledge on where people gain 
their support. I have a number of other provisions. There are lots of 
things that are being discussed around here. But let us look at where 
we are today.
  The argument is being made that we should rush to the floor 
immediately with campaign finance reform legislation so that we can 
debate this, but we need to look at what it is that has led to this 
very high level of frustration among the American people today. The 
fact that we read headline stories in virtually every major newspaper 
in this country on the issue of campaign finance reform, it has to do 
with violations of current law that are continually reported, and I 
think we should take a moment to review some of those things that have 
come to the forefront that have led to this hue and cry for change in 
the campaign finance law which is simply violations of the present law 
that now exists today. We have seen $3 million in foreign contributions 
that have been returned by the Democratic National Committee, 158 
fundraisers reportedly held in the White House; they have been called 
coffees or teas or receptions, but the documents show that they were 
fundraisers designed to raise between $300,000 and $400,000.
  Over $100,000 was raised in my area in southern California in a 
Buddhist temple at an event the Vice President attended among people 
who have taken a vow of poverty. The Washington Post reported that John 
Huang had tried to funnel a quarter of a million dollars in illegal 
donations to the Democratic National Committee through an Asian-
American business group.
  It seems to me that what we need to look at here, Mr. Speaker, as we 
have this cry for a rush to look at this thing of campaign finance 
reform, we need to first find out exactly what has happened under 
current law. And that is our goal here. But to argue that some do not 
want to do anything to change this system is preposterous because I 
know that Members of Congress very much do want to bring about a 
compliance.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank 
him for his generous allocation of time. Well, that is exactly my 
point. We ought to look at what is happening out there and then have a 
full debate. But the problem is the committee that is investigating 
this in the House is not looking, they are just looking at the 
executive branch, and there are problems there. We know that, you have 
read them out.
  But the fact of the matter is that particular committee and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has refused to deal with the 
questions of this Congress, it has refused to deal with----
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time----
  Mr. BONIOR. Of the Republican Party as well. It has refused to do the 
things that Senator Thompson is doing over in the Senate.
  Mr. DREIER. If my friend will let me respond, I would like to respond 
to what my friend just said. It is totally untrue to say that the 
committee is not going to expend any amount of time whatsoever looking 
into this. If there is evidence of any kind of wrongdoing on this side 
of the aisle, it clearly will be addressed, and so I mean the fact that 
they are focusing on this litany of items that continue to be the

[[Page H1552]]

front page news stories time and time again, that that is their focus, 
it is understandable because this is what is happening.
  Mr. BONIOR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. There were more front page stories in the paper today 
about the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and his connection with 
the Sikh community; why is that not being looked at? There were front 
page stories for 3 months on the Speaker. The Speaker collected between 
$10 and $20 million when he was in charge of GOPAC. We have no 
accounting of that. Why is that not being looked at? We just had the 
whole investigation with respect to the 501(3)(c)'s; why is that not 
being looked at?
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I am trying to be as generous 
as I can. We have Members here who want to speak, and I know the 
gentleman has time on his side of the aisle.
  Let me say that if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it is very 
apparent that they will be looked at on this side of the aisle, but it 
is so obvious with these things that have taken place from the 
leadership of their party they desperately need to be addressed, the 
American people want us to look at those, and then, then we will look 
at reforming the campaign finance system to take these obvious 
violations into consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from St. Clairsville, 
OH [Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, let us look at what is really going on here 
today. The Democrats are trying to pull a fast one. They want to rush a 
campaign finance bill, and that will help kind of cloud over a few of 
the things that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] did not get 
a chance to mention here, key figures in this scandal who have fled the 
country. We cannot talk to them. We cannot talk to them about their 
activities. Charlie Trie gave $640,000 in suspicious checks; he has 
fled the country, we cannot serve a subpoena on him. Pauline 
Kanchanalak gave $235,000 in foreign funds to the DNC that had to be 
returned; she has fled the country so we cannot talk to her. Relatives 
of the Riady family, the Lippo bank, gave $450,000 to the DNC that had 
to be returned because it was not earned in the United States; they are 
no longer in the country. This is the real scandal. We can look at the 
Congress. But as far as rushing a bill today there is so much work to 
do here we are not going to be able to rush through this process and 
set a time frame of May or June. We ought to comprehensively look at 
campaign finance; sure we should. It should have been looked at the 
last 12 years by the U.S. Congress. But let us not try to rush through 
a debate on campaign finance reform legislation before we have all the 
facts. That is important. That is what we are looking for is all the 
facts.
  And let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that they are right. We support 
campaign finance reform. I know they support campaign finance reform. 
But we should have a full and informed debate. Let us not try to say, 
well, we passed a bill, we do not need to talk about anything or look 
at anything. There is enough information here and enough to look at 
with the White House, and it was mentioned by the other side that there 
should be fire walls. For what is going on down on Pennsylvania Avenue 
we need a fire truck.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, with each passing 
day of this Congress more and more Americans are realizing that this 
Gingrich House is doing less and less to address the real concerns of 
their everyday lives. The millions of American families who are out 
there struggling and cannot get health insurance for their children 
know that this Congress is offering no answer. The millions of 
Americans who are out there struggling to find the resources as the 
cost of going to college escalates, who need some assistance, some 
support, a tax break for them to help them get their kids the 
educational opportunity they need, they know this Gingrich Congress is 
not doing anything for them.
  Why is that? Why is it that this Congress meets occasionally for a 
few hours to discuss suspension bills? Well, my colleagues, the problem 
is not the suspension bills but the desire of the leadership of this 
Gingrich Congress to suspend reality. They would suspend the reality of 
what it is like out there to try to struggle to make ends meet and to 
hope that the government would be on their side instead of dealing with 
some of the issues that this Congress has on occasion in its part-time 
sessions talked about, congratulating the Nicaraguans instead of being 
concerned with congratulating and supporting all those Americans who 
are out there trying to struggle up the economic ladder.
  Why does this happen? Why is this Congress so aimless that people on 
both sides of the aisle recognize it is accomplishing very little? 
Well, clearly one of the reasons is that we have largely been 
leaderless throughout this House since day one.

                              {time}  1200

  But there is another explanation, and that is the influence of money 
and politics on this Congress, and it affects everyone in this House. 
When we have to raise hundreds of thousands, indeed, hundreds of 
millions of dollars in each congressional election, Members of Congress 
begin devoting more time to raising money than tending to the Nation's 
business, and that begins to even affect the donors.
  Indeed, as my colleague from Michigan pointed out, the Washington 
Times reported last week, ``Donors tell Republicans they are fed up. 
Tax cuts to talks as chiefs gather.'' The basic outline of the story 
was if we do not get our crown jewel, our big tax breaks, we are not 
going to be giving any more money. That is the kind of influence that I 
am talking about that distorts the priorities of this Congress, that 
allows folks to attempt to suspend reality rather than to deal with the 
real problems of the American people.
  Of course, it is not just that this Congress has been doing very 
little over the last few months; it is when it does act, it does the 
wrong thing a good bit of the time, and one of those examples is the 
issue of campaign finance reform. How amusing it would be were it not 
so serious to hear my colleague from California and my colleague from 
Ohio tell the American people they want reform, they just do not want 
to rush into it.
  Well, what do my colleagues think we have been doing around here for 
the last three or four months, rushing to do anything? Rushing to get 
out of here occasionally to go home after a day and a half of work 
dealing with measures that have very little to do with the real needs 
of American families.
  We proposed on day one of this Congress that we address the issue of 
campaign finance reform, not in a rush but in a thoughtful and 
considered manner, and that effort on day one was voted down on a 
party-line vote.
  So we came back a couple months later, not in a rush or a panic, but 
realizing that there are real problems that ought to be addressed in a 
bipartisan fashion and we were again voted down. We came back a third 
time and were again voted down on the issue of whether or not we would 
have the very type of thoughtful debate that the gentleman from Ohio 
says we need to have.
  Today we are here for a fourth time, and for the fourth time some 
Members of this Congress will have an opportunity to reject reform.
  The question is not whether we are going to point fingers at one 
party or another, but whether we will come together, not looking at 
somebody else's house down Pennsylvania Avenue alone. That needs to be 
looked at, and my friends on the other side can look at it to their 
heart's content. But look right here in Congress and what is happening 
in this Congress, when donors tell Republicans they are fed up, if we 
do not get our tax breaks we are not going to be contributing to these 
congressional campaigns.
  This issue needs to be addressed by this Congress and addressed 
today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica], the dynamic subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am trying to remember back now. Let 
us

[[Page H1553]]

see. I came in 1992, in that election. 1993, I was here in 1994. I 
think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] was here in 1993, 
1994. I see my colleague on the floor, the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], was here in 1993 and 1994. In fact, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and I, I remember we came trying 
to get campaign finance reform brought before this House. In fact, I am 
trying to remember, was there ever, when the other party controlled the 
House, the other body, and the White House, any consideration on this 
floor of campaign finance reform. That was 24 months.
  Now, I do recall when we took over the majority, the things that we 
did. We did bring to the floor campaign finance reform, and I do not 
think it was a good bill. In fact, I thought it was a terrible bill. I 
thought the Republicans had a terrible proposal and the Democrats had a 
terrible proposal, but it was debated, it was heard fairly and 
squarely.
  What did the Republicans do? They passed a gift ban. In fact, we 
passed a pretty awesome gift ban. What else did we do? We talked about 
lobby reform that was long overdue. We not only talked about it, we 
passed legislation here on the floor. So we talked about these problems 
and we did something about them.
  What we are hearing today is an attempt to speak against a rule that 
is a fair rule to proceed in an orderly fashion with the business of 
the House and the business of the Congress. What we are hearing is an 
attempt by the other side to blur the issue.
  I serve on a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. We passed a protocol; in fact, we passed a protocol almost 
immediately, a fair protocol, to consider just about any problems that 
are brought to our attention, including this, even though we have 
committees of other areas of jurisdiction to deal with campaign 
finance. So those issues will, in fact, be heard and the important 
issues will be heard.
  We also heard them say we go too fast. Last year we were going too 
fast. Now they are saying we are going too slow. We are trying to take 
the people's business in an orderly fashion, and our actions speak 
louder than our words.
  We brought the Nation's finances into some balance. We cut $53 
billion in spending without hurting Medicare, without hurting 
education, without hurting the environment. So we are on our way. Do 
not be misled, and we will get the job done.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate participating in this debate today, 
but as a new Member of this House, as a freshman, I want to rise to 
express my frustration over the fact that we have not been able to put 
real campaign finance reform on the agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot pick up a newspaper without reading about 
another scandal. Bipartisan scandals, scandals in the White House, 
scandals in the Republican National Committee, scandals involving a 
certain chairman to investigate other scandals.
  What is frustrating to me is that there are a number of good and 
solid proposals dealing with campaign finance reform that have been 
introduced in this House in a bipartisan way, and yet we cannot get a 
date certain in which we can debate these issues, in which we can vote 
on these issues, up or down.
  Every major editorial board in this country has editorialized on the 
need for this Congress to move fast on the issue of campaign finance 
reform. The American people, if my colleagues read the polls, 
overwhelmingly believe that the time has come for us to move forward on 
campaign finance reform, and yet we cannot get a date, we cannot get a 
commitment from the leadership on the Republican side to bring this 
issue up and to do what the American people want us to do.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], raised 
the issue that in previous Congresses the Democrats did not ever bring 
up the issue of campaign finance reform. Well, it is my understanding 
that in the 102d and the 103d Congress campaign finance reform passed 
this House twice. It was vetoed by President Bush and then it was 
filibustered by the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.
  But that is beside the point in many respects. The issue here is not 
which party is involved with the most scandals, the issue here is not 
who can do the most finger-pointing, the issue should be how do we fix 
this broken system. There is too much money involved in politics, and 
we need to take the money out of the system.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend from 
Savannah, GA [Mr. Kingston], the hard-working leader of our 1-minute 
effort.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I share the Democrats' concern for some movement on 
campaign finance reform. As a Member of Congress, I have supported 
campaign finance reform, but to hear them talk about it is similar to 
hearing Al Capone talk about the need to crack down on organized crime. 
The hypocrisy is absurd.
  Let us talk about enforcement of the existing laws, Mr. Speaker, $3 
million in foreign contributions have been returned by the Democrat 
National Committee. Where is their outrage? Where are they on this? 
They are not calling. The 158 fundraisers at the White House. The 
documents show that there have been over $300,000 to $400,000 raised at 
each fundraiser. Of course, they are calling them teas and coffees. I 
guess Starbucks would be so proud.
  Over $100,000 raised by the Vice President of the United States at a 
Buddhist temple where everyone is sworn to a vow of poverty. Where are 
the Democrats? Where is there righteous indignation there? The Vice 
President makes fundraising phone calls from Federal Government 
property. Where are the Democrats? Silent again.
  The Washington Post reports that John Huang tried to funnel $250,000 
in illegal donations to the Democrat National Committee through an 
Asian American business group, and where are the Democrats? Where is 
their outrage? Nothing but silence.
  Let us continue. Pauline Kanchanalak. Now, I might be mispronouncing 
that name, Mr. Speaker. I am not as intimate with foreign donors as my 
Democrat friends are. But Pauline Kanchanalak gave $235,000 in foreign 
funds to the Democrat National Committee and they had to be returned. 
Now, we wanted, as Members of Congress, to subpoena her and ask her 
about this. She has fled the country. Where are the Democrats? Where is 
their outrage?
  Relatives of the Riady family, which of course owns the Lippo Bank, 
they gave $450,000 to the Democrat National Committee, which again had 
to be returned. By the way, did they pay interest on that? I mean 
because it could be a loan, I do not know. But they are no longer in 
the country either. Again, no subpoena, and again, I ask, where are the 
Democrats?
  Key figures have fled the country because of their activities. 
Charlie Trie gave $640,000 in suspicious checks to the President's 
legal defense fund. He has fled the country, cannot be subpoenaed. 
Where are the Democrats? Cuban drug dealers and Chinese arms merchants 
wined and dined at the White House. Where are the Democrats? Where is 
their outrage?
  Webster Hubbell given hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep 
apparently silent when he was under investigation by the independent 
counsel. Was this hush money? Mr. Speaker, where are the Democrats?
  Mr. Speaker, what I am interested in is although it sounds good and 
it is a great diversionary tactic for the Democrats to say we need 
campaign finance reform, why do the Democrats not join us on campaign 
law enforcement? Why do the Democrats not spend just a little bit of 
their energy having this same outrage at the folks over at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue instead of this sideshow, instead of these 
diversionary tactics. Let us look ourselves in the mirror and say, we 
have some good laws on the books right now and why do we not enforce 
those?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because in 
fact

[[Page H1554]]

we ought to be using this time to consider campaign finance reform. We 
all know that the system is broken, and we need to vote on campaign 
finance reform and we need to do something about reconnecting with the 
American people.
  Let me have just a little stage-setting if I might. The rule before 
us today would allow us to consider what we call suspension bills here, 
today, which is a Wednesday. Suspensions are noncontroversial items and 
are considered on Mondays and Tuesdays, so that in fact this House of 
Representatives can get down to business for the rest of the week and 
talk about those issues that the public truly does care about, such as 
fixing our campaign finance system.
  It is hard today to open a newspaper without reading about the lack 
of accomplishment of this Congress, 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. Record sums of money, 
$2.7 billion, were spent in the 1996 elections, and the American people 
rightly are asking and saying that there is too much money in the 
process.
  Yes, in fact, we have investigations, investigations which I support, 
which my side of the aisle supports and they ought to go forward. 
However, it is interesting that in the other body we have an 
investigation that is proceeding in a bipartisan way to look at how we 
look at the Executive Branch, and in fact how we look at the Congress 
and how they spent their money in the last campaign.

                              {time}  1215

  However, on this side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the 
equation, there is an investigation, but the chairman refuses to allow 
the investigation to be broadened to the Democrats and Republicans and 
the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague just before me talked about where is the 
outrage. I am outraged. I am outraged by the amount of money that is in 
this system. Let us open up the investigation on the House side to what 
the Congress did in the last elections. One of the reasons why my 
colleagues do not want to do this, let me just tell the Members a 
little bit about how the majority here, the Republicans, have put 
special interests before the public interest.
  Members will see, that ``Donors Tell GOP They Are Fed Up''. ``Tax 
Cuts the Talk as the Chiefs Gather.'' They do not want to deal with 
campaign finance reform because they are frightened to death that these 
folks are not going to give them the money that they want.
  Let us talk about the last session of the Congress. Tobacco gave the 
RNC, the Republican National Committee, $7.4 million. The GOP passed 
favorable legislation, a bill that would have saved the tobacco 
companies millions and millions of dollars. The NRA, National Rifle 
Association, gave $2 million, and Members may remember that the GOP 
worked hard and tried to kill the assault weapons ban.
  The GOP Congress let big business help to write the workplace safety 
bill. January 1995, big business lobbyists wrote up a 30-point item 
wish list for limiting certain workplace safety regulations. Life and 
death for American men and women in the workplace. When the bill was 
finished in early June, virtually every single item on that wish list 
had been incorporated into the final version of the bill. Business 
lobbyists even worked closely in drafting the bill.
  GOP lawmakers let lobbyists rewrite environmental legislation. The 
Republican whip admitted that he let a group of big business lobbyist 
contributors write the plan to place a freeze on environmental 
legislation: clean water, clean air, safety, and health of our families 
in this country; that he allowed the lobbyists to write the 
legislation, and this is a quote from him, he says, ``because they have 
the expertise.'' And many of the lobbyists had helped to funnel 
corporate money to Republican campaigns.
  The list goes on. This is a book called the NRCCC, National 
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, the tactical PAC project. 
If we go down the list here, we will find that every single political 
action committee has a rating of friendly or unfriendly in it, and this 
was used by the chairman of that committee to determine who would get a 
hearing, who could be let in the door. If they were unfriendly, in 
fact, they could not come in to have a conversation because they had 
not given enough. Friendly translates into special interest money.
  Nonlegislative outrages. The chairman of the National Republican 
Committee threatened to limit access of business who gave to Democrats. 
GOP leaders kept a friendly and unfriendly PAC list of who gave to the 
Republicans and to the Democrats. ``Two-hundred and Fifty Thousand 
Donors Promised Best Access to Congress by the RNC''; money bought 
access.
  Let me just conclude by saying that in fact we have a problem in the 
money that is involved in our politics. We are investigating. We are 
open to the investigation. I, for one, as a Democrat stand here and 
say, open the House investigation to Republicans and Democrats in the 
Congress. I am not afraid. Why are you afraid? That is what we ought to 
be doing.
  In fact, what we ought to do is get down, buckle down, get campaign 
finance reform legislation on this floor to debate and go through, and 
for the American people, to win that trust back, pass campaign finance 
reform before Memorial Day.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say I very much appreciate seeing the 
Washington Times regularly quoted by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. I hope it will not be, as often is the case, maligned when 
Members on this side hold up articles from the Washington Times in the 
future.
  I should also say to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mr. 
Speaker, that as we look at this issue, if there is evidence of 
wrongdoing on this side, there is nothing whatsoever that prevents the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight from looking at that. But 
every shred of evidence that we have of wrongdoing happens to emanate 
from the other side of the aisle. I think that is really understandably 
where the focus will continue to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Scotsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today without venom or vitriol to respectfully 
suggest to my liberal friends that the debate we should be having today 
in fact is misnamed by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, 
for it is not a debate about campaign finance reform.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, we stand on the precipice of a major debate 
concerning our national security, a question that should engage 
everyone, regardless of partisan label or political philosophy, because 
the question before us, raised not only in the Washington Times but in 
the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Time, 
Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, all the outlets of the main 
extreme media is this question: In an attempt to win an election, was 
access to our executive branch conferred upon foreign interests?
  Mr. Speaker, it brings me no joy to have to bring this up. This is a 
question of concern to every American. While I understand and to a 
certain degree appreciate the political tactic of trying to muddy the 
water, the observation is clear that the first step to genuine campaign 
reform is to obey existing law; is for those who now freely admit that 
they violate Federal law and who use the interesting term that their 
legal counsel informs them there is no controlling legal authority, let 
me simply say to those folks in the executive branch, Mr. Speaker, yes, 
there is a controlling legal authority; Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a 
controlling legal authority. It is called the Congress of the United 
States, in its oversight power conferred upon it by the people of the 
United States, who over 200 years ago ratified the Constitution of the 
United States.
  So the challenge before us today, Mr. Speaker, again is not a 
question of campaign finance. The challenge that will confront this 
Congress, indeed that will confront every city of this Republic, is a 
question of national security

[[Page H1555]]

brought to light under existing campaign finance law. It is a serious 
question. The question remains: Was the executive branch rewarding 
access to foreign interests in a pursuit of the almighty dollar for 
campaign activities, to hang onto the executive branch of Government?
  It is a serious question we must answer.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to sit this one 
out, but a previous speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, asked where is 
the outrage. I think after 90 days of session it is high time some of 
us expressed our outrage.
  See, for 40 years a group of people much like the previous District 
of Columbia City Council said, if we could just govern, give us a 
chance, we will fix it. But they have discovered, much like the D.C. 
City Council, that either they do not want to or they cannot. Now, 90 
days into the session, I would like you to tell me what you have done 
about any of America's major problems.
  What have you done about the drug problem? The answer is absolutely 
nothing. What have you done about our Nation's $5.7 trillion debt, $222 
billion annual operating deficit on your budget, $360 billion interest 
payment on that debt for your budget?
  You come down here and you cry crocodile tears and say we need a tax 
break. We need to give the wealthiest Americans a big tax break so they 
can turn around and instead of paying taxes, they can lend more money 
to the Government at 8 percent and 9 percent, so the average Joes who 
live in States like Mississippi will get less in return, because the 
biggest expense of the Government is not those bureaucrats they blast, 
it is not welfare, it is not food stamps, it is not defense or health 
care, it is interest on the national debt, and it is getting worse by 
the day, and you are doing nothing about it.
  What have you done to improve our Nation's defense? Defense spending 
is down about 10 percent since George Bush left office. Yet you all run 
the Congress. There are 30-year old helicopters right now flying 
around. Which one is going to crash next?
  You have not done anything on defense. You have not done anything on 
the deficit. You have not done anything on drugs. When given the 
opportunity to set a good precedent on funding, you secretly sneak 
through an 8 percent increase on funding for congressional committees. 
You do not even tell us you are doing it. A reporter has to tell 
Congress after it is done that you have increased that budget by 8 
percent.
  The outrage is that now we are trying to take one step in looking at 
some of the wrongs that are happening. I would like to know how NAFTA 
passed. Do Members remember the approximately $15 million the Mexican 
Government spent in Washington promoting the passage of NAFTA? Where 
did it go, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]? Do 
Members not think we ought to know that as well?
  The gentleman has made some very legitimate concerns. I agree with 
the gentleman on every single one of those concerns.
  Please, you are being rude, Mr. Dreier.
  What about the money the Mexican Government spent passing NAFTA in 
this town?
  If we are concerned about what foreigners are doing to influence our 
Congress, to influence our administration, should we not know that?
  Should not the folks who used to work at those five garment plants 
just in one 435th of the country that happens to be the Fifth 
Congressional District of Mississippi, who lost their jobs as a result 
of NAFTA, do they not deserve to know? Do Members not think the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] ought to look into that?
  We are asking for just one thing today. You will not do anything 
about the deficit, you will not do anything about the debt, you will 
not do anything about drugs. Let us make a little step. Let us look at 
campaign finance reform so maybe in the future there will not be 
another Congress that makes such a blatant mistake like NAFTA, where we 
went from a trade surplus to a trade deficit; where the only thing we 
are exporting to Mexico are jobs.
  That is why we need campaign finance reform. These folks are totally 
in the right. Give them a break for a change.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague who addressed me by name and 
then said I was rude, to ask him to yield time for me to respond that 
on the issue of campaign finance reform, we obviously are engaging in 
that debate as we proceed with this rule today. To argue that the only 
benefit from the North American Free-Trade Agreement has been to send 
jobs to Mexico is absolutely preposterous.
  Anyone who looks at the record that we have on the benefits that have 
been accrued to this Nation from free trade with Mexico and other 
countries, we obviously have seen tremendous job creation here, and 
improvements in the standard of living in this country because of free 
trade.
  The fact that people exercise their first amendment right to 
participate politically, that does not need to be investigated. What 
needs to be investigated is blatant violations of existing Federal law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Winter Park, FL 
[Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman if he is aware, 
regarding comments of the last speaker that this Republican Congress 
has done nothing on the drug issue, that in fact in the 103d Congress, 
again, when these folks controlled the House, the Senate, the White 
House, there was one hearing held. I was on the committee, the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on national drug policy.
  Since January, we have held more hearings than they held in the 
entire 103d Congress on drug policy.

                              {time}  1230

  We have had the drug czar before us. We have had the head of DEA 
before us. We spent much of the House's time talking about decertifying 
Mexico. I introduced that resolution with the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Shaw]. There has never been before a debate to decertify, to my 
knowledge, on the House floor a country.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] just held a hearing in 
Puerto Rico on how they gutted when they controlled all the 
interdiction around Puerto Rico that is bringing drugs in unprecedented 
quantity into my district, heroin, and we have held hearings and gotten 
reports from GAO.
  Just in 90 days we have done more than they did in an entire session 
of Congress on the drug issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, another point 
to add along with that is the fact that the much pooh-poohed statement 
of the former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, to just say no to drugs played 
a big role in decreasing the recreational use and the incentive for 
young people to use drugs, whereas we have from this administration 
seen very little focus on that issue. The byproduct of that has been a 
tragic and dramatic increase in the use of drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Glendale, CA 
[Mr. Rogan], former majority leader of the California State Assembly.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish first to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Arizona, who made a very eloquent plea on behalf of 
Republicans in this Chamber to keep their eye on the ball.
  I rise today not as a Republican, but as an American. The almost 
daily allegations engulfing the White House concern me not from a 
political standpoint as much as they do from a national standpoint.
  Mr. Speaker, I like to think that, if these same allegations were 
revolving around a Republican administration, my loyalty to my country 
would be much higher than my loyalty to party. I would urge a thorough 
investigation of this sort of conduct.
  When I was a new prosecutor in Los Angeles County, I first learned of 
a thing called the SODDI defense. There

[[Page H1556]]

was a certain criminal that I was prosecuting, who was clearly guilty, 
and he was claiming someone else had committed the offense. My boss 
told me, ``He is raising the SODDI defense.'' I spent a day looking for 
the SODDI case to figure out what it was all about. My boss laughed at 
me later. He told me the SODDI defense was an acronym for when a 
criminal claimed ``some other dude did it.'' I later discovered that 
the louder a criminal professed that ``some other dude did it,'' 
typically there was a correlating increase in the amount of evidence 
against them.
  Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis we are now being treated to a political 
version of the old SODDI defense on this floor. And there seems to be a 
correlation between the decibel level raised on the other side against 
the desire to keep a full and thorough investigation from occurring, 
and the mounting incriminating evidence respecting the alleged improper 
fundraising conduct of the White House.
  We do not take oaths on this floor, Mr. Speaker, to our party. We 
take an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. I 
would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember that 
oath. It was an oath to country, not party.
  When serious allegations are raised respecting foreign influence, 
foreign nationals and foreign corporations being able to reach into the 
White House and potentially affect the outcome of elections, that is 
not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. That is an issue respecting the 
sanctity of our electoral process.
  This House has an obligation to the Constitution and to the country 
not to allow a SODDI defense diversion from precluding us from fully 
investigating these matters.
  I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair advises that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] has 30 seconds remaining, and 
the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has 45 seconds remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The majority manager, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], 
will tell Members the previous question is a procedural vote on whether 
to close the debate and proceed to vote on the rule, but that is only 
half true.
  If you tell the House you do not want to move on a vote on the rule, 
control of the House floor will revert to the opponents of the rule for 
a vote on an alternative course of action. We would use the opportunity 
to instruct the leadership by majority vote of the House to bring 
campaign finance reform to a vote under an open rule by the end of next 
month.
  This is a substantive vote and the place where you can tell the 
leadership you want campaign finance to be a priority on the House 
agenda.
  I include for the Record the text of the proposed amendment at this 
point, along with a brief explanation of what the vote on the previous 
question really means:

             H. Res. 112--Previous Question Amendment Text

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Section 2. No later than May 31, 1997, the House shall 
     consider comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation 
     under an open amendment process.
                                                                    ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives,'' (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule * * * When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  To conclude my remarks, I remind my colleagues that defeating the 
previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants 
to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to 
this rule and in fact they do not even have an amendment, they do not 
have a bill. So the vote is without substance.
  The previous-question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to 
close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The 
vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever.
  I include an explanation of the previous question for the Record:

               The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that:
       ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, 
     being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a 
     quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.''
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 199, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H1557]]

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
[[PagBarr86]]
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Costello
     Fattah
     Gekas
     Istook
     Markey
     Pelosi
     Schiff
     Waxman
     White

                              {time}  1256

  Mr. COYNE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________