[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.

                          ____________________