[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.
____________________