Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3109-H3118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 408, INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN
CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 153 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 153

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 408) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972 to support the International Dolphin Conservation
Program in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant
to clause 6 of rule XXIII. That amendment shall be considered
as read. Points of order against that amendment for failure
to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment
to that amendment shall be in order except the amendment
printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XXIII, which may be offered only by Representative
Miller of California or his designee, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

{time} 1330

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Hastings] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Slaughter], pending which I yield myself as much time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on
Rules granted an unusual request from the Committee on Resources. As my
colleagues know, under the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the
Committee on Resources has typically brought its bills to the floor
under open rules. However, in the case of H.R. 408, certain provisions
of which also fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
Means, special circumstances clearly warrant granting a modified closed
rule.
H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act,
essentially codifies an international agreement between 12 nations
known as the Declaration of Panama. Were the House to make any
significant changes to H.R. 408, this historic agreement would be lost.
Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the negotiations that produced
this agreement could serve as a model for environmental policymaking on
many other issues because virtually every important viewpoint on the
tuna-dolphin debate was represented at the table. These negotiations
not only involve the governments of 12 nations, but also include key
representatives from both the environmental community and the fishing
community.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, it is an agreement that enjoys unusually
broad support from Vice President Al Gore to the Committee on Resources
chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], from Greenpeace to the
American Sports Fishing Association, and from the Tuna Boat Owners
Association to the labor unions whose members work on those boats. The
broad support was most visibly demonstrated on July 31 of last year
when the House passed an almost identical bill by an overwhelming
bipartisan majority of 316 to 108. Clearly the time has come for the
United States to ratify this important measure without further delay.
For that reason and in recognition of the delicate nature of this
international agreement, the Committee on Rules has reported a modified
closed rule that allows for an up or down vote on the bill.
The bill provides that in lieu of the Committee on Resources
amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered as the original
bill for the purposes of amendment, and said amendment shall be
considered as read.
The rule further provides for the consideration of an amendment
printed in the Congressional Record to be offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller]) or his designee. Finally, the rule, which was
agreed to in committee by voice vote without dissent, also provides for
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, Members who are committed to protecting the dolphin
populations in the eastern Pacific will agree that it is vital that we
move forward with this legislation. During the coming debate, we will
hear differing viewpoints on how this legislation may impact dolphins,
but keep in mind that the Clinton administration's experts, our own
Committee on Resources and a wide variety of environmental
organizations all believe that this bill will save dolphins' lives and
that it will also do so in a more effective way than current law will.
H.R. 408 backs up that claim by mandating that every tuna boat
operating in the eastern Pacific carry an observer to certify that not
a single dolphin was killed when the tuna nets were hauled up. Even one
dolphin death would prevent the entire catch from being sold in the
United States as dolphin safe. Under today's standards American
consumers do not have this kind of guarantee.
However, this proposal is not just about saving dolphins; it is about
preserving other endangered marine species, such as sea turtles as well
as billfish and juvenile tuna. Those of us who support H.R. 408 are
pleased that it will address the entire eastern Pacific ecosystem as a
whole and not just one aspect of it.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, Members desiring to protect dolphins, sea
turtles and other important marine life should support this rule to
pass the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule, but I do have some
reservations about the legislation that the rule would make in order.
The public outrage at the high level of dolphins slaughtered by tuna
fishing fleets in the eastern Pacific was so strong that in 1990 the
U.S. tuna canning industry announced a voluntary policy of refusing to
purchase tuna caught by harming or killing dolphins. This voluntary
policy led to the now well-known dolphin safe label found on cans of
tuna that are sold in the United States. Under the current statutory
definition of dolphin safe, which was supported by the Bush
administration and virtually all environmental organizations when it
was enacted in 1990. No tuna product can be labeled dolphin safe if
caught by chasing, harassing or netting dolphins. But Mexico and other
Latin American countries who are eager to gain access to our billion-
dollar American tuna market have protested that the labeling practices
constitute a trade barrier.
So to accommodate those nations H.R. 408 would change our definition
of dolphin safe upon which American consumers have relied for years.
Under the new definition included in this bill dolphins can be injured,
chased and netted without limit in the course of catching tuna which,
will then be stamped deceptively with the dolphin safe label

[[Page H3110]]

and sent straight to the American grocery store shelf. Essentially, the
law would dupe American consumers into purchasing canned tuna stamped
with the same dolphin safe label that they are accustomed to, but under
a definition that is much weaker then the current one.
I remember the debate on GATT and NAFTA, and what is on the floor
today is what we were promised would not happen. U.S. consumer and
environmental laws are being bargained away to satisfy the demand of
other nations for access to our markets. This legislation will
overwhelmingly benefit Mexico and other foreign tuna fishermen who want
to skirt the current requirements for selling their tuna illegally on
our shelves, and it undercuts United States tuna fishing fleets who
have been complying with the law.
At its heart this is not a dolphin conservation measure. We know it
is not because it doubles the number of dolphins permitted to be
killed. Even the National Marine Fisheries Service reports that the
two dolphin stocks most frequently chased and netted during tuna
fishing are at 20 percent or less of their original sizes, and neither
of those dolphin stocks is increasing.

H.R. 408 is a convenient means of ending a trade dispute with Mexico
and other Latin American countries at the expense of the American
consumer and our environment. My real concern is the precedent the bill
would set. Enacting it sends a message to any foreign trading partner
that this Congress is willing to sacrifice U.S. consumer and
environmental protection legislation in the name of multilateral trade
agreements and that our domestic laws can simply be negotiated away.
Mr. Speaker, this is a wrong message. I am having a hard time
swallowing the argument that this agreement is our only option to avoid
a showdown between Latin America and the United States at the World
Trade Organization. Congress is being told by the administration and
Mexico to take it or leave it. Surely a compromise could have been
reached that protected the integrity of the U.S. consumer and
environmental laws by still allowing trade with their neighbors.
While I will not oppose the rule, I do urge my colleagues to oppose
the underlying bill, H.R. 408, and in addition I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question. 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 the President Clinton
before July 4, and I would like to use this opportunity to again raise
the issue of why the majority has yet still to hold any hearings or
markups on campaign finance reform. Fifty-eight bills have been
introduced in the House, 1 of which is my own, to provide free
television time, and yet all 58 of these campaign finance bills
languish in committee.
Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for this Congress' continuing
failure to take action on this issue. The leadership of this House owes
it to the voters of the Nation to seize the opportunity before it and
to enact responsible campaign reform, and I hope my colleagues will
join me in opposing the previous question and opposing H.R. 408.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Hastings] for yielding me this time, and I am pleased
that the House is again turning its attention to the issue of dolphin
safe tuna. That actually is the subject today, the question of dolphin
safe tuna and better protection of dolphins. That is on the schedule,
and that is what we are going to debate because the rules of the House
say that when we are going to debate a subject, we are supposed to
stick to that subject. So while there are many other subjects we could
talk about today, this is the moment that we have set forth in the
Committee on Rules, in I think, a very fair and appropriate rule, to
talk about ways to improve protection for dolphins who are senselessly
slaughtered as part of a fishing process that caused international
outrage a few years ago.
This debate is a very important one for the environmental community
and the business community and for me especially as a Representative
from southwest Florida, which is a true paradise for people and for
dolphins as well.
In 1992, I was a member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries that we had in those days, and I helped push for the
successful passage of the Dolphin Conservation Program Act. That was in
response to the outrage of the senseless killing of dolphins as by-
catch in the fishing process.
We came up with a good solution. Over the last 5 years we have made
real progress in lowering dolphin mortality. Something like 25,000 we
knew of were being killed a year. We are now down, I am told, to 5,000.
That is still a high number, but it is a huge improvement. But there
are still a few lingering problems with the current law that we passed,
and the bill under consideration today provides the United States the
opportunity to address some of those problems while implementing
stronger protections for dolphins and other endangered species, and
that is what we are doing here; we are making sure we are doing the
right job in terms of protecting endangered species.
First let me commend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and
the others for their work on this bill. They have been out there doing
the hard work while others have been doing the complaining and the
talking to the press, and they have come up with a pretty good
solution. We have got some environmental legislation here that is
difficult to craft, but we have got a bill that is actually strongly
supported both by environmental organizations and by business, in this
case the tuna industry, and it is supported by the Vice President, Vice
President Gore, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and those
represent fairly diverse views on how we deal with the environment.
Under current law to receive the dolphin safe stamp of approval
requires only that the tuna was caught using fishing practices
generally considered safe for dolphins. That does not mean they were
safe; it is just that somebody got away with saying they were
considered safe. We were measuring what we thought might be an
expectation, and when we looked at the outcome, we decided we could do
better, and hence this bill today. Whether the dolphins are actually
killed during the catch is what matters, and we think we have a better
way to stop that senseless death.
H.R. 408 tightens the dolphin safe definition to require that no
dolphins are killed, a standard that will be enforced by having an
observer on each fishing boat observing every catch, and if even one
dolphin death happens in a catch, that would prevent the whole catch
from being sold in the United States as dolphin safe. The United States
is a very lucrative market, much sought after, so that is a very
important consideration. Clearly it is also a more stringent standard
and one we should all be able to agree on today.
Another issue of particular importance to me is by-catch. When sea
turtles and other nontarget species are caught and die in fishing nets,
it is called by-catch. We have made real progress towards reducing this
wasteful practice in the Magnuson bill last year, and I am pleased H.R.
408 will help reduce what is a very real problem still of wasteful by-
catch.
Some have expressed concern about this bill in relation to trade, to
NAFTA or GATT. At the outset let me say that I too have some concerns
about trade issues, particularly in Florida, about questions of
enforcement in NAFTA. But I am convinced that this bill has little to
do with the trade issue. If my colleagues will excuse the word, it is a
red herring and does not impinge upon U.S. sovereignty.
H.R. 408 implements more stringent protections for dolphins and
marine life in the eastern Pacific. If we want to protect dolphins, sea
turtles, and other marine life, we should support this rule and vote
for H.R. 408. I think it does the job very well, and that is the job we
are here to do today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.

[[Page H3111]]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

{time} 1345

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York [Ms.
Slaughter] for yielding me this time.
Let me begin by saying that I am going to support the gentlewoman
from New York in her efforts to get the previous question defeated so
that we can offer an amendment so that we can get a debate on campaign
finance reform in this Congress.
It will be the fifth time in this Congress Democrats are demanding
that we vote on campaign finance reform, and we will try to defeat the
previous question to get that done. We have had campaign finance reform
votes on January 7, March 13, April 9, and April 16, and not one of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle has joined us in support of
creating a day when we can have the debate on a very important issue
that this country is yearning to hear about.
Our way of financing political campaigns in this country is broken.
Everybody knows it. We all labor through an elaborate series of hurdles
and meetings and fund raisers just to stay above water in order for us
to compete politically, and it is eating up our time. It is eating up
our resources. It is wasting the country's energies. It is creating a
situation in which scandal after scandal on both sides of the aisle
appear daily in our newspapers and on our radio and television sets.
I think the American people have had it. They want a full-blown
debate on how best to fix this. Now, we know there are many parts.
There is a constitutional part that is involved here, there is
legislative, probably some regulatory things we can do, but we all
ought to have it out. We ought not to hide behind a system that is not
working. Some of our colleagues in this body have to raise as much as
$10,000 a day in order for them to be viable politically. That is
outrageous.
We have just seen or come through an election in Great Britain where
very few dollars are required to run for political office. We are
watching the Canadians now in their parliamentary elections right
across from my district, the same situation. The Irish will have one
soon. And yet here we are, spending upward of $1-$2 million per
individual on congressional races. We need to change the system. And
the other side needs to participate in that debate.
Although some have proposed spending even more on campaigns on this
side of the aisle, the American people think just the opposite. Nine
out of ten believe too much money is being spent on political campaigns
today. So we need to fix the system, to get the money down, to set
limits, to stop the negative advertising, and to get Americans voting
again.
Somewhere along the line our Nation's political discussion got
disconnected from the American people. They no longer see a link
between their lives and politics, between their work and the economy,
between their community and the challenges that we face as a country.
We need to have a debate about the fundamental nature of politics in
this country, and we should not be afraid to have it.
So I am calling on the leaders on the Republican side, the Speaker
and the other leaders. Set a date. We have asked for May 31. That is
obviously not going to happen. Now we want to have that debate to meet
the President's expectations on the Fourth of July.
It is no secret why some on this side of the aisle do not want to
have that debate. They have huge, wealthy donors that contribute
enormous amounts of money, mostly from the business community. They
outspent the labor community seven to one in this last election. The
Washington Times, according to an article on April 9, said this: Those
wealthy contributors have told the Republican leadership they can
forget about more money for the Republican Party unless tax cuts are
enacted.
Just last week, before thousands of wealthy contributors who gave as
much as a quarter of a million dollars to attend a dinner, a leader of
the Republican Party asked the assembled crowd to imagine Democrats in
charge of Congress. And then he said, and I quote: Whatever you have
donated, worked for or given to avoid that alternative is a token of
what it has saved you. It is a token of what it has saved you.
Well, it does not take an Einstein to read between the lines there.
Money is eating at the heart of the system. Vote ``no,'' vote ``no'' on
the previous question so we can get a debate on this floor on the
alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from New York. She
has offered an alternative. She has an alternative that will open up
our airwaves, the airwaves that we pay for so we can get on and we can
campaign and we can get our messages out to the American people. It
means taking on the broadcasters, but they are our airwaves. I want to
compliment her for doing that.
I want to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] for his
bill. I want to compliment my Republican colleagues who have a
disclosure bill. I do not agree with it, but they need to have that
opportunity to have the debate on the disclosure bill. I want to
compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. He has a
proposal which I agree with in many respects but have some
disagreements with.
We ought to have it all out. We ought to have some debate. There are
too many good ideas that are sitting, wasting away. The American people
want this debate, our system demands it, we ought to clean up politics
in this country and get on with campaign finance reform.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he
may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for
yielding me the time. I remind my colleagues we are debating a rule for
the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. This was a
noncontroversial rule until my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle decided to take this time to discuss unrelated issues. And
certainly the speaker that just preceded me is a former member of the
Committee on Rules, he is also one of the most intelligent Members of
the Congress. He is in the Democrat leadership and he knows the rules
of the House. The rules of the House prohibit the discussion of
unrelated matters when discussing a rule.
However, since they have done that, Mr. Speaker, I guess I could have
objected to it and made a point of order, but I think rather than do
that, let me just participate in this nonrelated issue which we should
not be discussing on the floor.
The previous speaker made some reference to contribution dollars
coming from labor and contribution dollars coming from big business
from the corporate sector. Well, let me just remind the gentleman that
it is illegal to accept any kind of money from corporations or
companies that are incorporated in this country. I do not think any of
us do. And if any of us do that, we ought to be brought up on ethics
charges and FEC violations by the FEC. The previous speaker who just
spoke, and I happened to look at his financial filing the other day,
and he receives money from labor, just like the gentleman from New
York, [Mr. Jerry Solomon] does, this Member of Congress, and I am very
proud that the workers at GE and the postal workers, the letter
carriers who were just at my office a few minutes ago, make
contributions into a political action committee to me to help me be
reelected, and I really appreciate that.
I also have it from other employees at General Electric Co., for
instance, who contribute to my campaign as well. Under the
Constitution, that is absolutely legal, and the way that it should be.
The minority is attempting to defeat the previous question and offer
the following so-called proposal. I think this is what it said the last
time I looked at it: The House shall consider comprehensive campaign
finance reform legislation under an open amendment process. And the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], my good friend, mentioned
something about before May 31, but then I hear the previous speaker,
the minority whip, say something about July 1. I really think we ought
to get our act together and decide which is which here.
But let me just say this, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. There is no
bill, no

[[Page H3112]]

amendment, no text, no proposal, no idea even. This is just a lot of
hot air meant to influence some people up in the press gallery or those
that might be watching.
Now, having said that, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, how would this alleged proposal address violations of
existing law? Let me tell my colleagues something, that is what I am
concerned about here. Does the Democratic bill that they are talking
about relate at all to obstruction of justice by high-level Clinton
administration officials as reported in the Washington Post? Where are
these articles I just had here, and the New York Times a little while
ago? Does the minority have any kind of plan that would address the
daily revelations of national security breaches that threaten the
security of the United States of America within the highest levels of
the executive branch, according to these articles? These articles say
Whitewater prosecutor finds obstruction of justice evidence. Whitewater
counsel says he has evidence of obstructing justice. Whitewater grand
jury term extended, cites possible obstructions of justice.
Let me tell my colleagues something, that is what the constituents I
represented are interested in. They want to know where all of this
money coming in from the Chinese Government into political pockets in
this Congress, they want to know how that money got here and how that
is illegal. Sure, if we want to get to the bottom of that, let us get
it out here and let us debate it. I would challenge anyone and all of
my colleagues on that side of the aisle, come on out here; we will do a
special order and we will talk about it to the end.
Would the minority's proposed bill address the allegations of foreign
corruptions of our national system which is being discussed across the
country in the media? As I scan down the newspapers every single day,
what I am confronted with, Mr. Speaker, is not a question of how the
Nation should finance political campaigns but more a question of, is
the White House adhering to the rule of law? That is the important
thing.
The American people expect their public officials to abide by the
law. Once this minimum threshold is met, then we can consider proposals
to existing law.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding, because I too join him in this almost fetish about creating
new laws, and yet, no interest at all in enforcing the current laws,
which may or may not have been broken.
I add to the gentleman's list of questions; when the Democrats talk
about campaign finance reform, do they want to find out about the
international contributions that were apparently illegal made to the
Democrat Party and the Clinton White House? Did they influence foreign
policy? I would like to know from the Democrats whether the Democrat
operative, John Huang, broke campaign finance laws by fund-raising when
he was on the Government payroll. I would like to find out whether John
Huang broke the laws by coordinating donations from non-U.S. citizens
who have ties with his former employer, and with no apparent reasons,
what was the pattern that they were given to the Clinton folks and the
Democrat National Party?
Did Mr. Huang compromise the U.S. national security by sharing secret
Government information with his former employer overseas? This is a
very relevant security question. Do the Democrats want to find out if
White House officials, while on Government payroll, illegally raised
funds for the Democrat Party? I would like to know about the computer
database at the White House. Was it legitimate or was it just there to
keep track of Democrat donors?
I would like to know whether the White House improperly used the FBI,
the National Security Council, or the CIA to pursue fund raising.
I think all of this is very important. I would like to know how long
was the President raising money in the Lincoln bedroom, and does the
President plan to continue doing this? I would like to know, if the
Democrat Party took all of this money so earnestly, why have they had
to return so much of it?
I believe that we have a legitimate reason to be talking about
campaign finance reform, but I also think a major part of it is to talk
about implementing current law. Before we go on with new grandiose
plans blaming it on the system, let us talk about the current ethics
situation over at the White House.
I think that, if the Democrat Party insists on ignoring these very
pertinent and relevant questions, which have far more to do with
national security than they do with partisan differences, then I think
they are doing the country a disservice. We in this Congress have a
security obligation as well as a campaign finance reform obligation.

{time} 1400

Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, because we are running
out of time, the gentleman mentioned a name, the name of John Huang.
Yes, the gentleman is right, we ought to get to the bottom of this,
because this is a man who was hired at the request of the President's
wife, worked for the Commerce Department, and it had at first been
revealed that he had 39 classified briefings, followed up by
simultaneous phone calls to an international conglomerate called Lippo,
who is undermining and competing with American business and industry
and jobs in this country.
Then we found out from the Commerce Department that they had held
back, that it was not just 39 meetings, it was 109, and some of those
were held at the White House. We are still trying to find out with whom
they were held and what was discussed, and what kind of economic
espionage was leaked at that time. Then just yesterday or the day
before I find out it was not 39, it was not 109, it was 149, by this
same gentleman that is undermining American business and industry.
What we need on this floor, and the gentleman has my commitment to
get on our bill, is full financial disclosure. I want to know where
that money came from, who contributed it, and then let us get to the
bottom and hold those people responsible.
I would say to the gentleman, I am going to have to yield back, but
if the gentleman gets his own time I will stay on the floor and I will
be glad to enter into a colloquy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question. I ask my colleagues to defeat this motion so
we may offer an amendment that will require the House of
Representatives to debate real campaign finance reform before July 4,
the deadline the President gave Congress in his State of the Union
address 4 months ago.
The current campaign finance system is clearly broken, and it needs
to be fixed in a comprehensive way, and it needs to be fixed today. The
Founding Fathers intended the loudest voices in elections to be those
of the American people, not wealthy, powerful special interests. When a
candidate for elected office spends 90 percent of his or her time
raising money, how can they effectively address their constituents'
concerns?
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have resisted Democratic efforts to reduce the influence of money in
politics. Speaker Gingrich has said he would emphasize far more money
in the political process. In my view, that is precisely the wrong
direction for us to go. There are a number of very good, comprehensive
campaign finance proposals out there. While we might not all agree on
every detail, I think we deserve to have a date set for discussion to
begin.
What we are asking Speaker Gingrich to do, then, is to simply give us
a date certain, give us a day when we can discuss campaign finance
reform. Let advocates and opponents of various proposals offer their
opinions and defend their positions on that day.
I and a number of my freshmen colleagues have been pressuring the
Speaker and the Republican leadership to schedule a day of debate and a
vote on real campaign finance reform before Memorial Day. Memorial Day
is next Monday, and guess what, no date, and

[[Page H3113]]

there is no indication that there will be a date.
My colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules,
said he would be willing to engage us in a special order. We do not
want a special order, we want a day where we can vote on campaign
finance reform.
Mr. Speaker, let us move forward and pass real, comprehensive
campaign finance reform. The fact is that in view of all the campaign
finance scandals that have engulfed both parties, the fact that this
House has failed to act is in my view a national scandal. Vote ``no''
on the previous question.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me.
I rise on this rule on H.R. 408, the bill that deals with changing
the law about truth in labeling. It essentially changes the law about
how we label things in America. I rise to speak against the rule,
because we are refusing to change the law that allows truth in America
about how we run campaigns.
The honorable chairman of the Committee on Rules just said this is a
lot of hot air. The heat is being turned on because the American public
wants to have campaign finance reform. The worst abuse of power about
it all is when they, because they are in power, if they have the power
to bring issues to the floor for debate, that is what is missing. That
is why we ought to be defeating this rule, and every rule until we get
a bill here on the floor, get a moment here on the floor where we can
vote on choices for campaign reform.
Look at this. We have had campaign reform voted on on this floor in
the last four Congresses. Every one of those has taken up campaign
reform. The President for the first time came right here in this room
and asked us, by July 4, just a few months from now, to have that bill
on his desk, and we have done absolutely nothing about it. That is the
abuse of power. That is the abuse of power.
The Republican leadership is avoiding the issue. The American public
wants us to debate it, wants us to vote it, and wants us to reform it.
All we are here to talk about is how we are going to take away the law
about tuna in a can, how we are going to change that law, how we are
going to tell people, they will misperceive, and people are not going
to know whether the tuna in that can was fished safely or not, and yet
we will not debate about how we are going to get people elected to the
U.S. Congress.
Congress needs to confront this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question, and to insist that we honor the people
of this country, that we honor the President of the United States, that
we honor our own process and our own power by bringing to the floor
those bills that have been introduced, all of those bills that have
been introduced on campaign reform, and have an honest debate and vote
them up and down. That is what we ought to be doing. Defeat the
previous question.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the majority, the
Republicans, are on the horns of a dilemma. They are trying to keep the
focus on the Presidential campaign. They always forget Mr. Barbour,
their chairman, who got a half a million dollars from a Chinese
company. It seems clear by some of the articles that they targeted
foreign money over at the RNC, they washed it through a nonprofit and
sent it over to the RNC.
But we can all sit here and talk about the failures of the present
system. The horns of the dilemma which they are on is while they can
highlight the problem, the American people reject their solution.
The last time they brought a bill to the floor they wanted to
increase the amount of money wealthy individuals could give. If Members
think wealthy people do not have enough access to Government, maybe
that is their solution. The American people do not believe that. They
wanted to increase the amount of money you could give to parties in
almost every other category. The American people do not believe that is
the solution. So the reason they do not want to bring the bill to the
floor is because if they bring it to the floor, the solution they
present will be almost unanimously rejected by the American people.
The record here is clear. Under Democratic control this House passed
campaign finance reform through the House and Senate. It was then
vetoed by President Bush. With the election of President Clinton and
his commitment to sign a campaign finance reform bill in the first 2
years, with a Democratic House we were able to pass the bill, only to
find it to be filibustered by the Senator from Kentucky.
Now the filibusterers are apparently in this Chamber as well. The
Committee on Rules, the leadership on the Republican side of the aisle,
have refused to give the Members of Congress an opportunity to bring
this legislation to the floor.
If the Members were firemen on that side of the room, they would be
looking at a fire saying, my, it is terrible. It is burning. It ought
not to be doing that. Why do you not turn a hose on? They say, ``Oh,
no, we are just here to critique the present system. God forbid we
should come forward with a solution.''
There are solutions on their side of the aisle. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr] has one, I have one. There may be different ways
to fight a fire, but not turning the hoses on is not one of them.
In this case, we have to shut the fire of money down. The average
citizen does not feel he can have an impact on a political process when
he hears about a half a million dollars to the RNC or a half a million
dollars to the DNC. We ought to limit contributions to $100, make every
American feel like they can be empowered. We have to have a system that
encourages women and minorities to have the same opportunity to run as
wealthy white males.
I have nothing against wealthy white males, but they should not be
the only ones represented here.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gutknecht]. If the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] will suspend, the Chair will take the
prerogative of the Chair to remind all Members that under the rules and
precedents of the House, it is not in order to cast reflections on the
Senate or its Members, individually or collectively.
Finally, it is not in order to refer to the President in terms that
are personal.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I think those are good
rules. We are all trying to live by them.
The question is, Are we going to respond to a system that is
endangering the support of the American people? When they see a half a
million dollars given to one campaign or another, they feel like their
involvement volunteering in a campaign, or a small contribution that an
average individual could give, are meaningless.
Let us come together on this and give the country back to the people,
send them the message that their volunteering in campaigns for
Republicans, Democrats, or Independents is vital to the political
process. Let us tell them that we are not going to have the kind of
monstrous-sized checks given to political parties and candidates that
make the average citizen feel like they do not count.
Let us give America back to the people of this country, and let us
rebuild the confidence, not just pointing fingers at each other, where
each side may have erred, but how do we fix it. That is why we are sent
here. We are not just observers in a war, we are here to fight for our
constituents. I believe the majority is abdicating that responsibility
on this crucial issue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a rule here on a tuna-
and-fish bill. Everyone knows there is something fishy and something
wrong with campaign financing as we know it. I think this side wants to
change it.
The problem is that the other side and the White House, even as we
speak here today, have not done much to cooperate in the investigation
to see what is wrong with current campaign financing. Even as I am
here, documents are being delivered from the White House. Today we were
about to question and hold in contempt the

[[Page H3114]]

White House legal counsel because month after month they have refused
to cooperate with us. They said they were going to give us documents
and did not until that pressure was applied.
So we want campaign finance reform, we want to improve the system, we
want to work with the other side, and we know we can and must do a
better job. But we should at least have the cooperation that we have
had to elicit out of the other side by force, unfortunately, today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the question that we have to
ask ourselves is simply, when is enough enough? How much longer can we
sit here as Members of the House of Representatives and pick up any
morning paper in almost any city in the United States and read yet
another story about some campaign committee, some officer of the
Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the
White House, the congressional campaign committees, engaging in
activities either that are illegal, or have so distorted the system
that those who write large checks, those who have access to money, get
access to government that the ordinary citizen could never dream of.
This is supposedly the people's House. Yet we find that money, money
is becoming the means of access, as opposed to your rights as a
constituent to Members of Congress. Every day we see more and more
decisions brought forth in the press that were distorted by money:
decisions of regulatory agencies, decisions of committees, decisions of
subcommittees, where money influenced the outcome of the deliberations.
The Republicans like to suggest that it is all just about illegal
contributions. The tragedy at the end of all of these investigations
will be that the vast amount of money that causes the distortions in
the system in terms of representational government is legal. It is
legal. It is legal to the extent that it is simply swamping the ability
of local constituents to have a say in their election.
We need campaign finance reform. At the very beginning of this
session, I and 100 of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, wrote to
the Speaker and asked him to give us a date to bring it forth within
the first 100 days of Congress. May 26 is the 100th day and he has not
brought it forth. The President has asked to do it by July 4. There is
no indication that will be done.
In 100 days we defeated Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf. In 100
days the Brits defeated the Argentinians in the Falklands. In 100 days
Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid the groundwork for a New Deal.

{time} 1415

In 100 days, 2 years ago we passed most of the Contract With America.
In 100 days one can do great things. This House, this Speaker has
chosen to do nothing in this first 100 days with respect to a cancer on
the political system of American government. We need that debate on
this floor. We need a wide open debate.
Our beloved former Speaker, Tip O'Neill, when asked by people, what
is the greatest power that the Speaker of the House of Representatives
had, he said, the power of recognition, because the Speaker controlled
the agenda. If the Speaker does not recognize you, you cannot come
forth on the floor.
The Speaker of this House owes it to the House and to the American
people to use his power to call forth the debate on campaign finance
reform and let the chips fall where they may. The investigations will
continue and, as the investigations like to point out, they are
investigating matters that they believe are already illegal under the
law.
That is not the problem in terms of representational government, and
that is not the problem in terms of this institution. The problem is
the volume of money that is now foreclosing the voices of millions of
Americans who would like to weigh in in the decisions that we make in
the people's House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will do something unique and speak
about the issue at hand, the tuna dolphin bill, and stay away from what
some of my colleagues want to get into, political maneuvering.
I stand before my colleagues as an original cosponsor of a bill that
would save dolphins. When I was on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee, we had a pretty monumental problem. All over the world,
dolphin were being killed in thousands and thousands of numbers. Both
the United States and other fishing environments and fishing fleets
reacted and tried to devise methods that would actually save dolphin
and allow us to fish and feed the populations of the world.
One of the things they did was to establish a system to where they
could back down the net because, where you have tuna being caught, the
dolphins swim above it. And the dolphin were being caught up in these
nets. So the fishing fleets devised a system where you would actually
back down the nets and, where the dolphin swim above, the tuna would
swim out of the back side of the nets. We have had two fishermen from
the United States killed by sharks actually trying to help the dolphin
out of the nets.
Now, dolphin-safe means that there is no dolphin within that
particular catch that was killed. And for some of my colleagues, that
is not good enough. One of the problems is there are 11 other nations
out there that fish tuna and catch dolphin. They do not adhere to our
rules. So there are still dolphin being killed in many of these
catches.
There was an agreement that was set forth, called the Panama
agreement, to bring in these other nations to ask them to adhere to our
requirements to not kill dolphin. And they did so under the dolphin-
safe label and under the Panama agreement. Some of my colleagues will
say the State Department was not involved. I have got letters from
here, and I have got the actual Panama agreement itself signed by the
State Department. It was negotiated with five environmental groups that
support this legislation.
I have got a letter here from the President of the United States; I
have one here from Al Gore. It says: The Vice President says the
administration strongly supports this legislation, which is essential
to the protection of dolphins and other marine life in the eastern
tropical Pacific. Then the President, our shared goals are to further
reduce, eliminate dolphin mortality, to minimize incidental catch for
other species, and he strongly supports this legislation.
Greenpeace believes, and I quote: Greenpeace believes that the
Greenpeace bill offers the best foundation for the United States and
other nations to resolve the tuna-dolphin.
It goes on and on. Here is one from Barry McCaffrey. Some of my
colleagues will claim that we are shipping drugs through fishing
fleets. Give me a break. Most of the drugs come through cargo
containers and across our borders. And, yes, there is a drug problem.
The boat that they refer to is out of Ecuador, which is a dolphin-safe
country already. And guess what, there was no fishing paraphernalia on
the boat that was caught. It was one of their boats. It was not even
fishing, and it had no observer.
Every single boat that goes out to fish will have an internationally
trained observer to monitor, to make sure that there are no slip-ups.
If there is a dolphin killed in that set, Mr. Speaker, that set cannot
be used in dolphin-safe fishing.
But yet some of my colleagues will still fight it. The real answer,
here it is right here, Earth Island makes millions of dollars managing
the tuna-safe dolphin. Here is their fundraising list after they blast
all the negatives. Here is the President, the Vice President, the White
House, we had 316 votes last year on this. It went through two
different full committees. The subcommittee, the committees with
amendments and changes and all these changes went through in
conjunction with the Panama agreement. And now they are supported by
Republicans and Democrats, and this is going to pass overwhelmingly.
That is why my colleagues across the aisle here want to use this as a
political stymie in campaign finance reform. The issue before us is
protecting dolphin.
I would say that there is another reason. There are actually, believe
it or not, pro-reform people in the Mexican Government that are working
with us.

[[Page H3115]]

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Turner].
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a no vote on the previous
question because of my strong belief that it is time for this Congress
to act and to act quickly on campaign finance reform.
Recently the New York Times quoted a woman by the name of Pam Elliott
in Tennessee who said, ``The special interest groups are spending
millions to get their point across and people like me aren't heard at
all. ``Money talks,'' says Ms. Elliott.
Unfortunately, Ms. Elliott is right. Money does talk. In fact, it not
only talks but it shouts. So loud that it is drowning out the voices of
ordinary Americans who want to participate and be heard in the
political process.
As the tide of special interest money has increased, voter turnout
and confidence in Government has fallen to a dangerously low level.
Voters have concluded that their votes mean far less than a wealthy
contributor's dollars, and they believe that our Government is for sale
to the highest bidder. Experienced lawmakers from this Chamber have
left this House, because they are weary of spending their time
panhandling for dollars. And qualified citizens have declined all
across this country to run for office because they are unable and are
unwilling to stoop to the level necessary to raise the millions of
dollars needed to run for office today.
Less than half of the voters in this country even bother to
participate in casting a vote for a candidate for President because
they are turned off by the political process as we know it. What kind
of company in this country today would pay for an advertising campaign
that drove half the consumers to boycott the product? That is what we
are doing with our current system of campaign finance.
A democracy cannot survive, much less succeed, with such a widespread
loss of faith in the democratic process.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], subcommittee chairman on this
legislation.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, one would hardly know what this bill was
about listening to the debate. This rule is about a bill which has been
long in coming.
We have been working on this bill for 3 years, and it came as a
result of a law actually that was passed in 1993, because in 1993, we
recognized that we were killing too many dolphins in the eastern
tropical Pacific by way of tuna fish fishermen.
What was happening back then, Mr. Speaker, is very simply that the
way of catching tuna was to find a school of dolphin and recognizing
that tuna fish school up under dolphin, we would surround, or the
fishermen would surround the dolphin with large nets called purse seine
nets and scoop up the tuna fish along with the dolphins. We found that
we were killing something in excess of 100,000 dolphins a year. That is
what this issue is about.
I find it regrettable that the other side has seen fit to take this
time and steal it away from the environmental community who have been
waiting for 3 years at least to discuss this issue today seriously and
take the time and use it for something else.
But the bill that is coming today I think is a very important one and
it really has taken a long time to get here. What we will do today is
to turn back the bill that was passed in 1993, which did in effect make
American fishermen stop fishing on dolphins, as the terminology goes,
stop fishing on dolphins so that we would not kill 100,000. And we have
reduced the kill of dolphins to a very, very low level.
Unfortunately, 12 other countries that fish in the same fishery chose
not to abide by American law because they had other markets for the
fish and they were off doing other things. So we set upon international
negotiations through our State Department to bring an end to the
international catch of dolphins.
As we have proceeded, this bill will be the final chapter, we hope,
in bringing about a resolution to that problem. Not only will we have
an international agreement that solves the dolphin problem, we will
also have an international agreement that provides for a habitat
management plan in effect which preserves the lives of sea turtles,
billfish, sharks and young juvenile, some people call them baby tuna
fish, all of which are victims of the present regime of activities that
goes on in this fishery which is a very, very bad management plan.
So we have heard a lot of hyperbole today about what the other side
would like us to hear about. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, it is no
wonder the American people get confused. It is no wonder the American
people get disgusted because we bring a rule to the floor that has to
do with dolphins and tuna fish and sea turtles, and the other side sees
fit to try to publicize and politicize the debate.
I think it is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity to vote
on the underlying bill, but I rise in support of a ``no'' vote on the
previous question to require a vote on campaign finance reform by July
4. That is because the leadership of the Republican Party has refused
to bring this issue up.
Let me also rise to highlight the Republican majority's abuse of the
legislative process to block campaign finance reform.
Mr. Speaker, back in January, President Clinton challenged the
Congress to enact bipartisan campaign finance reform by July 4. The
following week the Republican leadership responded by not including
campaign finance reform on its list of legislative priorities for the
105th Congress. Soon after the cosponsors of the bipartisan campaign
finance reform act sent a letter to Speaker Gingrich, asking him to
work with us to set a schedule for House consideration of bipartisan
campaign finance reform. We received no response.
In February, the Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on campaign
finance reform and on the first amendment. The gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I asked for the chance to testify on the
bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. We were denied that
opportunity.

{time} 1430

Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 months, the gentleman from California,
Mr. George Miller, has asked time and time again for a vote on campaign
finance reform, for a vote to be scheduled. Time and time again his
requests have fallen on deaf ears.
Mr. Speaker, we have focused long enough on the problems of our
campaign finance system. The question the American people ask is when
will we do something about it? Why is it when the President challenges
Democrats and Republicans to come up with a bipartisan bill that we see
day in and day out this legislative calendar with everything but
campaign finance reform on the agenda?
We need to vote on campaign finance reform because this system is
broken and needs to be fixed. And as long as the Republican leadership
drags its feet, we will be on the floor of this House demanding a vote
on this issue.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation that we are
considering this afternoon is indeed very important. Anyone who has
ever been at sea and seen a school of dolphin leap into the air knows
that this mammal is something that is very precious, another gift of
God to this world.
And as beautiful as that sight is, as seeing a dolphin leap through
the air, what a contrast it is to see the ugly side of politics as
candidates and elected officials leap through one hoop after another in
the search for campaign dollars in a campaign system that each year
requires hundreds of millions of dollars in order to have a chance to
see how this Congress and how this democracy will run.
Unless we find a better way to deal with the netting of elected
officials that is occurring from special interests across this country,
then the fishy smell will pervade more than just this Chamber, it will
pervade this country.
The American people know how critical it is to reform our campaign
finance system. They have spoken out

[[Page H3116]]

again and again expressing their concern not just about one party, but
both, and the way our democracy is threatened by special interest
money, and yet again and again we have come to this floor and asked to
be heard on this issue. It is not a question of a lack of time or a
lack of interest in this body; it is, rather, a lack of commitment on
the part of the leadership to bring this issue to the floor.
And it is easy to understand why. Speaker Gingrich has said again and
again that he thinks there is not enough money in the political system.
He wants even more money flowing into this system. And we heard him say
only last week, at a gathering of contributors who gave as much as a
quarter of a million dollars apiece to the Republican Party, that
whatever they have donated, worked for, or given to avoid that
alternative; that is, not having Republicans in power, is a tiny token
of what it has saved them. It is this quid pro quo system that has to
be changed.
We do not claim to have a monopoly on the solutions. The Blue Dogs
have a solution. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] has come
forward with a solution. There are many alternatives that can be
considered. But why not allow the time on this floor for a full and
open debate on the need to reform our campaign finance system?
What can be more fundamental than the way this democracy works, than
the way our Members of Congress and all of our Federal officials are
financed? This is vote No. 5 today for reform. Let us make it a
positive vote.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I come from the 7th District of Georgia, and I do not
think we have any dolphins there, but this is important legislation to
many districts around the country that have problems with tuna fishing
and dolphins.
We heard about, I do not know whether it was lords a leaping or
dolphins leaping through the air in the sunset or something. And then
we segued from that through a series of platitudes about let us let the
chips fall where they may and money talks, all of which has nothing to
do with either the issues of ethics in Government, honesty in
Government, and selling our national security, nor does it have
anything to do with the legislation at hand.
But let us pick up the gauntlet that has been thrown down today, Mr.
Speaker, and let us reflect on a couple of things here that are
factually and historically accurate and deserve to be considered as
part of this so-called debate on the other side.
The campaign finance laws about which the other side is ranting and
raving and railing today, Mr. Speaker, have been around actually for
quite a while. As a matter of fact, they were enacted by Democrat
Congresses. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just two Congresses
ago both Houses of the Congress; that is, the House and the Senate,
were in the hands of the Democrat Party. And come to think of it, Mr.
Speaker, so was the White House.
Now, they were not out here talking about lords a leaping and we need
to let the chips fall where they may and money talks and we need to do
something about it. No, all those folks were lining their pockets. They
were going to the Huangs and the Lippo Group and the Buddhist temples
and lining their pockets. And now, when their hand is caught in the
cookie jar, oh, now they say, this is a bad system and it is awful what
it has forced us to do and we must change this system. We must change
this system. We have never had the chance before to change the system,
but now we must change this system so that what it has forced us to do
does not ever happen again.
This is bogus, Mr. Speaker. Let us get back to the issues and let us
move on to the business of this country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The debate we have had today, Mr. Speaker, is important to us, and I
think it is important to the American people, but we do not have a lot
of avenues to try to make our opinions known.
A couple of things have been said that I would really like to comment
on. The first is that I share everybody's grief and concern when these
laws have been broken. Nobody feels more badly about that than I, and I
want to get to the bottom of it. But one of the ways we could have done
better in trying to make sure that the laws we have on the books now
are conformed with was the $1.7 million that was taken out of the
supplemental last week to the FEC to help them to make sure that all
laws are complied with, and I am sorry that that happened as well.
This vote today on whether to order the previous question is not
merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question
today is a vote to allow this opposition, for at least a moment, to
offer an alternative plan.
I want to make it clear to everyone that defeating the previous
question will in no way affect the consideration of H.R. 408, which is
important and which we will not in any way try to interfere with, but
it is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert extraneous material in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
As this debate concludes, it seems as if there is a pattern being set
here, at least by the other side, that when we are debating a rule we
will go off on other issues. And I think that is regrettable because
this issue is a very important issue. While the minority obviously has
a right to offer dissenting views and other motions, I think we should
put those in perspective.
So I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by reminding my
colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in
futility because in case the minority wants to offer an amendment, that
will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. So as a matter
of fact, the vote will be 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.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would provide for the Record an
explanation of the previous question.

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.

H. Res. 153--Previous Question Amendment Text

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Section 2. No later than July 4, 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

[[Page H3117]]

``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-Illionis) 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.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). 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 the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
Without objection, the postponed vote on the motion to suspend the
rules will be a 5-minute vote immediately after the disposition of this
rule.
There was no objection.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht) [during the vote]. Members
are advised that the voting machine is apparently not working and that
voting will proceed with Members casting their votes in writing in the
well.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore [during the vote]. The Chair announces that
voting stations are now operative in the Chamber. Those Members who
have not yet voted or would like to check whether or not their vote has
been recorded should do so because the Chair is informed that they are
now operating.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore [during the vote]. The Chair apologizes for
the necessary/delay in manually recording votes and encourages all
Members to verify either on the computer terminals or on the board that
they have in fact been recorded. The Chair expects to have the rest of
the votes recorded within the next 2 or 3 minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 203, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 149]

YEAS--226

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
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
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
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
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
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 (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
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
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
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
Costello
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
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
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
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
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
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
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
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

[[Page H3118]]

NOT VOTING--5

Andrews
Hunter
Lewis (GA)
Schiff
Snowbarger

{time} 1517

Messrs. BOSWELL, RAHALL, and WISE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________