[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7309-H7320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2016, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H.Res. 228
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2016) making appropriations for military
construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points
of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 228 waives all points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration. The conference
report for H.R. 2016, the military construction appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1998, shall be considered as read. The House rules provide
for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report appropriates a total of $9.2
billion, which is $600 million less than was appropriated last year. It
is important to note, however, this amount is $800 million more than
the amount requested by the President.
We know that much of this Nation's military housing and on-base
housing have deteriorated to substandard conditions, unsuitable for the
men and women who serve our Nation. While our Armed Forces deserve the
very best we can provide, the current facilities assure that we will
not be able to retain the best and brightest in our military.
{time} 1415
This bill addresses the need to improve the quality of life of our
military and their families.
Specifically, the bill provides $3.9 billion for family housing,
including funding for new housing and improvements. Regarding
improvements in the quality of life that I mentioned earlier, H.R. 216
provides $32 million for child development centers, $163 million for
medical facilities, and $3 billion for the operation and maintenance of
existing family housing units.
It is also important to note that the conference report appropriates
$857 million for environmental cleanup and $104 million for
environmental compliance.
I hope that we can pass this bill quickly so that there is no delay
in cleaning up contaminated sites on our military bases.
This bill achieves our goal of spending taxpayer money more
efficiently and where it is needed most. Notwithstanding the
constraints we now face after decades of fiscal irresponsibility, H.R.
2016 effectively funds programs that will provide child day care
centers and improved hospital facilities. These appropriations
guarantee the health and safety of the families and children of our
service men and women.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard],
the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Hefner], the ranking minority member, for their continued
bipartisanship. These two men and their committee understand that this
is an important bill for the men and women who defend our country.
I urge the House to pass this rule without delay so that we may
proceed with the consideration of a conference report that will improve
the quality of life, housing, and medical services of our Armed Forces,
their families and their children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this conference
report providing appropriations for military construction in fiscal
year 1998. This conference report rightfully retains the emphasis the
House-passed bill placed on quality-of-life issues for the men and
women of our Armed Forces and their families, and deserves the support
of all of the Members of this body.
Forty-two percent of the funds in this conference agreement are
dedicated to family housing, including $900 million for new family
housing units and for improvements to existing units and $3 billion for
the operation and maintenance of existing units. Decent housing for our
troops and their families should be one of the highest priorities, and
this bill makes a significant continued commitment toward improving the
housing available on our military installations around the world.
But improvements are not just for family housing, Mr. Speaker. This
conference agreement also provides $724 million for barracks for single
and unaccompanied military personnel. This conference report also
includes $32 million for child development centers and $160 million for
hospital and medical facilities on military installations.
In combination, these items total more than half of the $9.2 billion
recommended in this conference report, amply demonstrating the
commitment of this conference on a bipartisan basis to improving the
standard of living of the men and women we depend upon to protect and
defend our Nation. It is the very least we can do, and I commend this
conference report to my colleagues.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, at the time that the previous
question is put I will ask for a vote on it, hoping to defeat the
previous question so that we can make in order a resolution at the end
of the resolution, adding a new section which would say that before the
House adjourns sine die for the first session of this Congress it shall
consider campaign finance reform legislation under an open amendment
process.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the purpose of this is to try
once again to get the House to consider the important issue of campaign
finance reform. We have seen, we have just come through an historic
election in this country where hundreds of millions of dollars were
raised and spent on behalf of various campaigns, and what we are
witnessing now, both in the Senate and soon in the House, are
investigations into how that money was spent by both the national
committees and the administration and congressional campaign
committees.
However, what has become very, very clear in that situation is that
there is a dramatic need to overhaul our campaign finance system in
this country. Money is now flowing into campaigns that overwhelms all
of the limits that originally were placed on Federal campaigns in terms
of what individual candidates can take, what individuals can
contribute, what organizations, political action committees can
contribute. We now see that those reforms are being overwhelmed by the
huge influx of soft money into these campaigns.
[[Page H7310]]
I personally believe that we should have a ban on soft money, but
more important than my personal belief is whether or not this House
will schedule campaign finance reform for an open debate on the floor
of the House of Representatives.
Last week, the American public witnessed the dictatorial activities
of a senior Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee barring a
hearing, a simple hearing, as to the fitness of a candidate for
Ambassador to Mexico. Democracy seems to have been thrown out of the
window here in terms of how these two bodies are now proceeding.
We now see that clearly a majority of Members of the House support
some kind of campaign finance reform in one fashion or another, but we
are not allowed to debate it. We are not allowed to debate it because a
handful of people in the leadership have decided that it will not come
to the floor.
Point Of Order
Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair whether
it is within the Rules of the House to refer to Members in the other
body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not within the rules, and the Chair
would advise the Member not to refer to individual Members from the
other body.
The gentleman from California may proceed in order.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair explain to me
how one talks about the other body, then?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. One refers to it as the other body, and one
may not be critical of individual Senators.
Mr. MILLER of California. So some Member in the other body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed in order.
Mr. MILLER of California. I would be happy to. It is just an
interesting notion of free speech.
I would have to say again that some Member in the other body,
apparently a single Member in the other body which I cannot identify,
but the other body, acted in such a fashion that one cannot get a
hearing on the Presidential nomination for Ambassador to Mexico. Those
of my colleagues who are familiar with encryption can figure out what I
said. Those of my colleagues who are not can read the morning paper and
find out what took place.
But the fact of the matter is in this body we see the same kinds of
activities to deny a majority in this House a debate and a discussion
and a vote on campaign finance reform, and that is tragic. That is
tragic because what we see is the infusion of money. The infusion of
money, much of the money that cannot be tracked, cannot be traced,
nobody takes credit for it, and yet it shows up in campaigns on behalf
of one interest versus another, apparently completely unregulated by
the campaign laws of this Nation, is influencing how we are making
decisions. It is corroding the democratic process. It is corroding the
democratic process in this House, and it is corroding the democratic
process in the Senate. The time has come to give the people an
opportunity to see where we stand on campaign finance reform.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is not a Republican
or Democratic issue, although it is the Republican leadership that is
currently blocking this. We just noticed this week in one of the more
conservative magazines in this country that campaign finance reform has
become one of the top issues among conservative constituencies, about
whether Republicans will have campaign finance reform or they will not.
It has jumped from being of little notice by the American people to now
in the double digits of what they consider to be the most important
issue confronting this country.
Why is it the most important issue? Because whether we are doing
military construction or whether we are doing a tax bill or a commerce
bill or whatever it is, what we see now is the special interest
influence on the outcome of these debates is disproportionate to that
of the average American, and it is disproportionate for one reason. It
is disproportionate because of money.
That we are influenced no longer is just the fact that Congressman
so-and-so represents us and we can pick up the phone and say ``I am an
interested citizen in your district.'' What we now see is too often
that phone call is delayed while we talk to people who give tens of
thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most
recently now million dollar contributions.
We now see it is the tobacco companies. We can talk all we want about
tobacco while we were doing the tax bill, but it was not in there. And
then late one night, the last night of the session, in the dark of
night a $50 billion provision got put in that bill because of soft
money and special interest money, not because of the American people.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that
the single largest special interest in the last election were the labor
unions which spent, according to a Rutgers University study, between
$300 and $500 million in campaigns, 100 percent of it against
Republicans, and of the 84 or 85 proposals being proposed or offered as
bills, not a single one from the Democrat side proposes dealing with
that expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the Chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia [Mr.
Linder], a member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the membership that we are
debating a rule which waives points of order against the conference
report on the military construction appropriation bill. One would not
believe that from what I heard when I was sitting up in my office a few
minutes ago. Members should generally follow the Rules of the House
around here and address themselves to the questions under debate.
However, the issue that has been raised by some on the other side of
the aisle is of great concern to me, and I really feel compelled to
respond to it.
Today, many Members in the minority are advocating that the House
should consider some form of campaign finance reform. Well, Mr.
Speaker, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are
approximately 85 campaign finance reform bills pending before this
Congress right now. There are proposals from liberals, there are
proposals from conservatives and Republicans and Democrats which
approach this issue from differing philosophical perspectives.
But before any legislative body can make laws, it must first assess
the functioning of the existing laws. The enforcement of existing law,
Mr. Speaker, has experienced an absolute meltdown here in Washington.
It is unbelievable to the American public.
When I talk to my constituents in upstate New York, I hear less
interest in how political campaigns are financed and more interest in
whether public officials in the Clinton White House will obey the law.
That is what they were telling me this past weekend when I was home.
Mr. Speaker, the revelations of wrongdoing at the highest levels of
the Clinton administration appear in this Nation's newspapers and
magazines every single day, not just in conservative publications, but
the New York Times just over the weekend calling for an independent
counsel to be appointed, and yet nothing is being done by this Attorney
General.
The fund-raising scandal of the Clinton administration which
continues to unfold on a daily basis raises grave questions about
economic espionage that every Member of this body ought to be concerned
about. Economic espionage means the loss of American jobs and the
extent to which American foreign policy was compromised by influence
from a foreign power. Does that not bother my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle? I am going to tell my colleagues something, it
bothers me as a U.S. citizen.
Was American national security compromised by campaign contributions
from abroad, Mr. Speaker? The newspaper editorials across this country
say it was, and they call for an independent counsel. Did officials at
the highest levels of the Clinton administration break the law in their
zeal to raise funds for the President's reelection? Mr. Speaker, these
are the profound issues which must be addressed by the investigative
functions of this Congress
[[Page H7311]]
before we can adequately reshape campaign finance laws, if we need to
do it at all.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my friends on the other side to focus their
attention on these congressional investigations which are ongoing,
rather than call the House into consideration of a nefarious campaign
finance reform bill. My constituents are not asking for a vague
financing reform proposal, but rather that the occupants of the White
House today simply respect their office, and especially the Cabinet
level members of the White House, respect their office and obey the
laws of the land and carry out their obligations. That is what we ought
to be debating on this floor today. That is what the people back home
want to know about, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1430
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to talk about the fact that
underlying all of the expenditures and the considerations for
expenditures is the issue of how we do our business, and whether or not
we do it in a credible fashion.
I take some issue with the previous speaker indicating that the
voters in his district perhaps are not interested in having us debate
campaign finance reform, and instead want to know more what is
happening in the investigatory sense.
We have two committees, one in the House and one in the Senate, that
are supposedly investigating past practices. Unfortunately, the one in
the House is spending a lot of time doing depositions that, I might
add, seem to be unfocused, accomplishing very little; in fact, I
understand again today have postponed certain hearings with regard to
that.
But people in the country are worried about what we are going to do
about future practices. They are worried about both parties and the way
their fund-raising enterprises have been conducted, and whether or not
the perception is that there is any honesty in government, and whether
or not the actions we take are credible. There is a perception that the
amount of money that is injected into politics at all levels, but
particularly the national level, have a bad effect, an ill effect, on
our governing.
The fact of the matter is that once again it seems that States and
cities are taking the lead in a lot of what should be national or
Federal policy initiatives. They are driving national policy.
When it comes to talking about sanctions for South Africa, or it
comes to talking about what is going on in Burma, it has been States
and local communities that have taken the lead in trying to make sure
that something happens there. When it comes to talking about minimum
wages, it is the States and local communities that have taken the risk
of raising the minimum wage for workers in their communities.
The fact of the matter is that a number of States have moved forward
on campaign finance reform. In Vermont we saw the legislature there
pass a campaign finance reform initiative. In the State of Maine people
went to the ballot and by almost 60 percent got behind a campaign
finance reform initiative. In Ohio there has been a cutback in the
large contributions and stiffened disclosure rules; in New Hampshire,
stiffer disclosure rules; in New York, computerized disclosure rules.
In State after State, in Oregon and Idaho, New Mexico, Georgia, North
Carolina, citizens' groups have gone to the fore and led the charge. We
should not have to stay here in Congress and wait once again for local
citizen groups, local communities, and States to lead the charge on
what is, in fact, a national issue of importance to people. As well as
knowing what might have gone wrong in the past, they insist that this
body look forward to see what we are going to do with our own campaign
finance practices.
At a bare minimum we ought to be looking at doing something about
soft money. There are few, if any, people in the American public who
doubt that that is at least one issue that we can resolve here and we
can deal with in this session.
My suggestion is that if there are, in fact, 85 initiatives there,
they ought to be assigned to committees, we ought to be debating those,
we ought to be moving some of those to this floor, so the American
people will not think that the only deliberative body in this entire
country that seems unwilling to address the matter is the body that
should be doing something first and foremost, this Congress.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to stand up and echo some comments that
were said earlier about how important this military construction budget
is, and how important it is that we do first things first and take care
of the men and women who have been taking care of our country. I have
toured bases across the country, and I have seen, unfortunately, that
funding for quality of life issues is woefully inadequate.
I wish this entire debate could be concerned around that, because we
could talk not only for an hour but we could talk for days about the
importance of taking care of the men and women in uniform that protect
and defend this country, and have done so honorably for some time.
Regrettably, the subject has been changed. It has been changed time
and time again. Regrettably, some people may believe that there is a
cynical reason why the subject continues to be changed. It continues to
be changed because those that claim to want to change the law cannot
even follow the laws that are already in practice.
I saw this weekend an editorial from the New York Times that aimed
directly at many of those who are now clamoring for campaign finance
reform. It was in the Sunday editorial. This same Democratic Party who
is now stepping forward, claiming that they are now interested in
campaign finance reform, took several hits from the usually liberal
editorial page of the New York Times.
The New York Times this weekend wrote of this newly reform-minded
Democratic Party: ``The Democratic Party has engaged in a systematic
scheme of juggling its books, transferring money from one account to
another, in possible violation of the law.'' The New York Times also
wrote, ``* * * the Democrats mixed campaign accounts that are supposed
to be rigidly separate. * * * The first order of business ought to be
fixing responsibility for the Democrats' fund-raising abuses * * * the
shuffling of accounts * * * the laundering of money and illegal
transfers of funds from foreign sources.''
The New York Times went on to talk about this newly reform-minded
Democratic Party by stating, ``Last week we learned that the Democratic
National Committee routinely deposited soft money in its hard money or
candidate accounts without informing the donors * * * it is clear that
the DNC was casual about one of the law's most basic distinctions.''
They also wrote, ``The torrent of disclosures of political fund-
raising abuses by the Democrats last year has no doubt had a numbing
effect on many Americans. But if ordinary citizens find it hard to keep
track of the shady characters, the bank transfers, and memos suggesting
that the administration and others knew what they say they did not
know, the Justice Department has no excuse.''
They conclude by saying that this Attorney General, who for many
Democrats in the early 1970's must have been outraged by a lot of the
conduct of former Attorney General John Mitchell, it says, ``This
Attorney General should step aside and let someone with a less partisan
view of law enforcement take over the crucial task of investigating the
White House money flow.''
Yet we continue to hear these so-called calls for reform, when the
New York Times itself is talking about money laundering and continued
violations of Federal law that we already have in practice.
I have been hearing this now for some time. We have heard that there
is a connection, an illegal connection possibly, between the unions,
which gave $300,000 to $500,000, and the Democratic National Committee;
from Communist China and the Democrat National Committee; and all of
these other illegal or improper sources, and
[[Page H7312]]
yet we hear the Democrats coming to the floor talking about the need
for campaign finance reform.
It makes me wonder what parallels could be drawn from, let us say,
the driver of Princess Diana coming back from the dead to talk about
the need of lowering speed limits in tunnels throughout Paris, or
talking about the need to toughen drunk driver laws in Paris. These
same people that have violated law after law after law after law now
come to us and talk about the need for new laws. They could not abide
by the old ones, so let us make them tougher.
Let us talk about a few of the laws we could worry about that fix up
things through the rest of this year without going to a new set. The 2
U.S.C. 2441(e) prohibits foreign nationals from directly or through
others contributing to any political campaign or soliciting, accepting,
or receiving such contributions; in other words, no foreign money.
Clearly this law has already been violated.
Then there is section 18 U.S.C. 1956, which prohibits the
solicitation or acceptance of laundered campaign contributions intended
to conceal the nature, source, ownership, or control of funds. This
would apply, for instance, if you are going to, let us say, a Buddhist
temple for a fund-raiser and accepting money from dirt-poor Buddhist
nuns who have taken an oath of poverty who mysteriously came up with
$140,000.
This law, it appears apparent in most major news articles, has
already been violated.
Then there is 18 U.S.C. 607, which prohibits the solicitation of
campaign funds on Government property. Records show that in this
administration a number of people have violated this law over and over
again.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to do it right now, but we could go
through law after law after law. It is certainly not my point to
embarrass anybody that comes to this floor, and I will not do it by
talking about the specifics of their campaign accounts, but I will say
that one person who continually comes to this floor talking about the
need to be able to trace campaign forms, and I do not speak today of
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], who did bring up this
subject, but one person who continually comes to this floor, who comes
to this floor talking about the need to be able to trace campaign
accounts, received over $590,000 in soft money contributions from union
sources who used them in television ads that could not be traced
through the Federal Elections Commission.
Mr. Speaker, this call for the changes in laws is nothing more than
an attempt to change the subject. Instead of talking about changing the
laws, let us just have the Democrats and the Democratic National
Committee abide by the laws that are already passed.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the last speaker has made a bunch of interesting
comments. I would point out to him that the only Member of the House of
Representatives who has pled guilty to campaign violations during this
session of Congress was a Member on the other side of the aisle, a
Republican Member from the State of California.
If he wants to make these kinds of allegations, he had best be
careful when he is talking about Members of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, my point would be if that gentleman
came to this floor talking about the need to clean up campaign finance,
I would be the first one to come to this floor telling him that he is
acting shamelessly, telling him to get off the floor of this House.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, we are having a little bit of an interesting dialog here
on a topic that is important to many of the American people, which is
the way we finance our campaigns here to get elected to the U.S.
Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency. I think there is room for
bipartisan agreement, which is that the current system stinks. It
stinks. The influence of special interest money here in Washington, DC,
is evident day in, day out.
Go back and page through the tax bill and wonder where some of those
special provisions, the 73 special individual provisions in the tax
bill which did not grant much tax relief to middle-American families,
came from; very, very, very well-financed organizations that give
tremendous amounts of money to people running for Federal office.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have a problem now. Now their own base,
their own constituents, according to a recent poll in the Weekly
Standard, a Republican conservative magazine, support by a large margin
an overhaul of the way we finance campaigns in this country. So I can
understand why the gentleman is defensive the other side of the aisle,
why the gentleman wants to obfuscate the issue before us.
I am willing to admit there is a bipartisan problem. There is a
problem both with the Democrats and with the Republicans here. I would
like to remind the gentleman that it is Bob Dole's vice finance
chairman who went to jail for 6 months, Simon Fireman, who pled guilty
to 74 counts of money laundering.
Yes, we have some laws, and occasionally someone gets convicted, but
the laws are full of loopholes. There are a lot of other people doing
things that average Americans think they should go to jail for that are
actually legal under these current loophole-ridden numbers.
I am a sponsor of a couple of campaign finance reform bills. I am not
going to argue the merits of those bills today, but what I would like
to do is see that we here in the U.S. Congress are given a couple of
days or a week before we rush home to debate this vitally important
issue.
What is wrong with debate? What is wrong with airing these issues?
What is wrong with bringing a few bills to the floor in an open
amendment process? We have been working on the Health and Human
Services bill for 7 days now, interminably, with an open rule. Let us
bring campaign finance reform to the floor with an open rule. The
chairman of the Committee on Rules promised us we would do almost
everything in this Congress under an open rule.
Let us bring something that is so vitally important, that goes so
much to the heart of our democracy, here to this floor. Let us have a
promise that we will have that debate. Let us have a campaign finance
reform week before we leave.
In light of that, we are asking our colleagues to vote no on the
previous question to demonstrate their support for bringing this issue
up before Congress rushes back for the cover of their home districts.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Sadly, we got a bit off
track on what we are supposed to be discussing. I would concur with the
gentleman from Florida's comments who said that we cannot talk about
our men and women in the armed services and the wonderful contributions
they make to this country.
Mr. Speaker, as I go home each weekend, I meet with constituents, and
I talk on talk shows, and I do town hall meetings. The one thing that
clearly is communicated to me time and time again is the fact that this
body is not very well respected. In fact, some might even say this body
is hated and despised. I think it is because hypocrisy flows down the
aisles of this body. I think time and time again there are those that
speak out of both sides of their mouths.
I am not saying there is a corner on that market with either party,
but I have to say that the hypocrisy that I am hearing ring so loudly
from the other side is very, very confusing and disheartening.
{time} 1445
In fact, what they do rings so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what
they say. In the past there have been TV evangelists who stand up,
bully thump on the podium and talk about the ravages and the wrongs
associated with immorality and extramarital affairs, and then these
same TV evangelists, they patrol the streets looking for ladies of the
evening to satisfy their desires, and then they wonder aloud why
[[Page H7313]]
people have lost confidence in them. And we see the exact same thing
happening in this body when we see flagrant violation after violation
after violation.
And then we have folks on the other side that are trying to play the
old bait and switch trick, trying to take the attention from the one
nut with the pea under it so that they can pull the old trick on us.
Well, let us get down to business and let us make sure that we honor
the laws that we have on the books.
I wish that the last speaker was just as passionate in calling for
the Attorney General to call on a special counsel so that we can get to
the bottom of whether or not existing laws have been violated. Again,
what they do rings so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what they say.
The New York Times editorial says Democrats skim $2 million to aid
candidates, records show. Why is it that we are not getting that kind
of information from the Justice Department? Why is it that we have to
rely on the media? Why have we not got special counsel right now? The
fact is the Democrats' call for bans on soft money are blatantly
hypocritical. While the Democrats cry wolf, the President is soliciting
soft contributions of $250,000 a pop from these fund-raisers that he is
having.
The Democrats' strategy is simple. Again, it is bait and switch. They
are trying to change the subject from illegal fund-raising phone calls
of a high ranking official in the White House; from that same official
shaking down Buddhist monks. It is time to get with the program. It is
time we should understand exactly how existing laws were violated
before we cry out for a new law. We have to know all the facts before
we move forward.
Should we hold those responsible for violating current campaign
finance laws and make them accountable for their actions? Otherwise, if
we are going to pass a new law and implement that law with a wink and a
nod, as we are doing with existing laws, if we do not have then an
Attorney General who has the guts and the decency to investigate
current laws, why do we want to add more laws to the books?
It is irresponsible to blame the system for the mess that they are
in. It was deliberate unlawful acts, not the system, that caused them
to violate the campaign finance laws that existed in the last election.
Their calls for new campaign laws are an attempt again to bait and
switch.
We want to get the truth out. We all do. Let us work hard to do it,
and work hard in a bipartisan way, but let us stop the hypocrisy and
walk the walk as well as talking the talk and knock off the
hypocritical bait and switch routine that is going on over there.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the protest
from the other side. If I was stonewalling this as hard as they are, I
would raise the objections, too.
The fact of the matter is the record is clear that when the Democrats
were in control of Congress in the 102d Congress, 1991-92, we passed
campaign finance reform and it was vetoed by George Bush. In 1993 and
1994 the Democratic controlled House and Senate again passed
comprehensive campaign finance reform, but Mitch McConnell filibustered
the final bill on a motion to appoint the conferees.
With the Republican control now in 1995 and 1996, nothing from the
Republican Congress; and now in the 105th Congress, nothing from the
Republican Congress except a stonewall of the efforts. Our record is
clear. When we controlled the House, this debate was brought to the
floor of the House and the House worked its will, the Senate worked its
will and, unfortunately, President Bush vetoed that legislation.
So I can understand why my Republican colleagues are flailing their
arms over there, but the fact of the matter is they are what stands
between the American people and the cleaning up of this unacceptable
campaign finance system that we currently have.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard].
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I wish to remind the body that this rule is for a bill that
my colleague and I, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner],
have put together and has been through conference, and we would like to
remind the body that that is what this debate is supposed to be about.
We have a good rule. I support the rule. I hope that the body will
vote for the rule and that the debate that has now been going on, on
campaign finance reform, will not divert our attention away from this
very good rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, let me say that I support the rule. This is a
reasonable rule, as I stated earlier in my remarks. As the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller] has indicated, it is his intention to
oppose the previous question in order to make an amendment which would
require the House to consider campaign finance legislation before we
adjourn sine die for the first session of this Congress.
The request being made by the gentleman from California that we
consider campaign legislation sometime between now and the end of
October is a reasonable request. There are a number of proposals
pending which would do a variety of things, and I do not agree with all
of the things that are under consideration, and I would like to take a
moment to discuss some aspects of that.
That does not mean that we should not consider campaign finance
reform, but it does mean that there are some aspects of campaign
finance reform that require careful consideration. One is the effort to
totally ban donations of non-Federal money, commonly called soft money,
to political parties.
Such a ban would have the ultimate effect of destroying the political
party system in this country. Mr. Speaker, the destruction of organized
political parties does not serve the ends of democracy, and will
certainly never ensure the free and open political discourse so many
people seek.
Let me be specific. Under this proposal to totally ban soft money,
all elections in even numbered years anywhere in this country would
essentially be federalized; that is, all activities conducted by State
and local political parties would have to be paid for entirely out of
federally qualified funds, since the names of Federal candidates appear
on the ballot in those years. State and local political parties would
be precluded from using funds that are otherwise legal under State law
during election years when Federal election contests take place.
Let me take this one step further. If the total ban on soft money
were to become law, State and local political parties could not use any
locally used funds for such activities as voter registration, slate
cards that contain the names of Federal candidates, get-out-the-vote
phone banks designed to identify and turn out voters for an entire
party ticket, or even programs designed to assist seniors in voting
absentee by mail. These activities are of course conducted by State and
local parties, which depend upon a combination of non-Federal donations
and hard dollars for the funds necessary to carry them out.
Mr. Speaker, since federally qualifying dollars are tightly limited
and controlled, and go primarily to candidates for the purchase of
television and other advertising, State and local parties and the State
and local candidates they support would have great difficulty operating
under such a proposal.
There is no question that there have been abuses in the way soft
money has been raised and the way soft money has been spent, and I
agree, Mr. Speaker, that those abuses should be addressed by the
Congress and should be addressed this year. The appropriate way to
address these abuses is not to ban soft money, but rather to place
reasonable caps on how much any individual or other entity, such as a
corporation or union, can contribute to a party committee while
allowing political parties to continue to pay for basic turnout
activities with a combination of hard and soft dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I for one believe that vibrant, healthy political
parties are crucial for the effective functioning of democracy. I feel
that the proposal supported by some to totally ban soft money would
destroy the institutions that are basic to and necessary for the
[[Page H7314]]
continuation of a representative democratic government in this Nation.
Political parties ensure democratic representation in all levels of
government in our society, and without them I fear that ultimately only
those individuals who have great personal wealth will have the means to
run for political office.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Farr], who has been very active in this area of campaign finance reform
on a comprehensive basis for a sustained period of time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the
Record a short history of campaign finance reform and make it part of
the Record.
Basically, we have heard comments here today that we as legislators
should not legislate; that all we ought to do is investigate, give up
our role of making law even when we find things that are broke that
need fixing. We would rather hear and smear than make things that are
wrong right.
I want to just point out to this House that has certainly not been
the history under previous leadership in this House. Whenever my party,
the minority party now, has been in charge of this House, we have
passed comprehensive campaign finance reform, and that comprehensive
campaign finance reform has done one of the primary things that is
needed in this country that everybody is talking about, and that is put
a limit on what we can spend.
People will say that is unconstitutional, the courts have said. They
have never said we could not, in a law, set up a system where
candidates could voluntarily limit themselves, and that is the bill
that is before this Congress. It was before the last Congress. And in
fact in the last Congress it was the bill that got more votes than any
other bill on campaign reform.
Unfortunately, this year, we have not even been able to have a
hearing in the committee of authorization, much less set a schedule for
when that bill will be brought to the floor and voted on.
The American public is sick and tired of seeing us just talk about
campaign finance reform, just to investigate past campaigns, they want
us to use our role as legislators. The courts cannot do that. The
administration cannot do that. When things are broken in the law, the
only people that can fix it are the people that are serving in this
House. And in fact we can fix it for our House without even fixing it
for the Senate. We can have a different set of rules in running for the
U.S. Congress.
And we ought to be doing that but, instead, we are trying to
backpedal, we are trying to find excuses, we want to have more
hearings, we want to discuss it. Well, the history shows that this
House has never done that before. We have never waited so long to do so
little about campaign reform as we are doing in this session.
In the 1989-90, the 101st Congress, a bill was passed then by Tony
Coelho, and it had cosponsors on the other side. It went through the
hearings, was adopted and passed the House on August 3, 1990, by a vote
of 255. Obviously, it could not have been done just on a pure partisan
vote. Bipartisan vote on a comprehensive campaign reform, that same
bill, is sitting before the House today, an approved version of that
bill H.R. 600.
In the 102d Congress the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson]
introduced a bill. It had key sponsors from both sides of the aisle. It
went through a hearing process and passed the House on November 25.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit the remainder of my remarks for the
Record. Since I am out of time.
A Short History of Campaign Finance Reform
100th Congress, 1987-88
House
H.R. 2717: Introduced June 18, 1987 by Tony Coelho (D-CA).
Key Cosponsors: Leach, Synar; 96 cosponsors in all.
Legislative action: Went through the hearing process but
was never reported from committee (never went to the floor).
Senate
S. 2: Introduced January, 1987 by David Boren (D-OK).
Legislative action: Then-Majority Leader Bob Byrd tried to
bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The Republicans
filibustered the consideration of the bill for a record seven
cloture votes.
101st Congress, 1989-90
House
H.R. 14: Introduced January 3, 1989 by Tony Coelho (D-CA).
Key Cosponsors: Leach, Synar; 98 cosponsors in all.
Legislative action: No action taken on this bill; for
further action, see H.R. 5400.
H.R. 5400: Introduced July 30, 1990 by Al Swift (D-WA).
Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Gray, Brooks, Annunzio, McHugh,
Anthony, Frost, Sabo, Synar; 9 cosponsors in all.
Legislative action: Went through the hearing process.
Passed the House August 3, 1990 by a vote of 255-155
(including 15 Republicans voting yes). Was adopted in the
Senate on September 18, 1990.
Senate
S. 137: Introduced January 25, 1989 by David Boren (D-OK).
Legislative action: Went through the hearing process.
Passed the Senate on September 18, 1990 (H.R. 5400 in lieu)
by voice vote.
Conferees were never appointed to reconcile the two
versions of the bill. Congress adjourned October 28, 1990.
102d Congress, 1991-92
House
H.R. 3750: Introduced November 21, 1991 by Sam Gejdenson
(D-CT).
Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Bonior, Derrick, Kennelly, Lewis
(GA), Hoyer, Fazio; 82 cosponsors in all.
Legislative action: Went through the hearing process.
Passed the House November 25, 1991 by a vote of 273-156.
Senate
S. 3: Introduced January 14, 1991 by David Boren (D-OK).
Legislative action: Went through the hearing process.
Passed the Senate May 23, 1991 by a vote of 56-42 (H.R. 3750
in lieu).
Conferees were appointed in March, 1992.
House agreed to the conference report on April 9, 1992 by a
vote of 259-165.
Senate agreed to the conference report on April 30, 1992 by
a vote of 58-42.
President Bush vetoed the bill May 5, 1992.
Senate failed to override the veto May 13, 1992 by a vote
of 57-42.
103d Congress, 1993-94
House
H.R. 3: Introduced January 5, 1993 by Sam Gejdenson (D-CT).
Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Bonior, Derick, Kennelly, Lewis
(GA), Hoyer, Fazio; 45 cosponsors in all.
Legislative action: Passed the House November 22, 1993 by a
vote of 255-175 (S. 3 in lieu); requested conference with the
Senate the same day.
Senate
S. 3: Introduced January 21, 1993 by David Boren (D-OK).
Legislative action: Passed the Senate June 17, 1993 by a
vote of 60-38. Cloture filed on motion to go to conference on
September 23, 1994 due to filibuster by Senator Phil Gramm
(R-TX); cloture failed on September 27. Second cloture
petition filed on September 28; failed on September 30.
Congress adjourned sine die on October 8, 1994.
104th Congress, 1995-96
House
H.R. 3505: Introduced May 22, 1996 by Sam Farr (D-CA).
Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Bonior, Fazio, DeLauro, Lewis
(GA), Richardson, Kennelly; 88 cosponsors in all.
Legislative action: Went through the hearing process; was
offered as a substitute to the Republican campaign finance
reform bill in committee and on the floor. Failed passage on
the floor 177-243. Received bipartisan support.
Senate
S. 1219: Introduced September 2, 1995 by John McCain (R-
AZ).
Legislative action: Went through hearing process; cloture
filed, failed by a vote of 54-46 on June 25, 1996.
Office of Rep. Sam Farr,
September 9, 1997.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here ignoring the purpose of this rule, military
construction, and debating campaign finance. It should be pointed out
that we are in this fix because the Democrats passed comprehensive
reform in 1975, after Watergate, and the adherence to the rules they
cannot abide by, and now they want to fix it.
The previous speaker said his party has passed comprehensive reform
on many occasions since 1989. They have, reform that they are very
happy with because it does not deal with off-record spending by labor
unions, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, but only those monies raised and
spent by candidates. The gentleman from California only deals with soft
money. He does not care about all the rest of it, he has to fix soft
money.
The fact of the matter is we have good laws on the books that have
been broken, and rather than admit that the laws that they broke should
put people in trouble with the Justice Department, they want to change
the system.
[[Page H7315]]
This is not new. I have raised two kids through their adolescent and
teenage years who are now adults. I have seen people get caught, young
children get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and blame the
cookie jar. This is blame the system and change the subject.
I have not heard much lately from the Vice President regarding
campaign reform. That is perhaps because he has so abused the laws
currently on the books. We now see, according to Time Magazine, that
his former chief adviser, Mr. Peter Knight, is under investigation by
the Justice Department because of his multilayered connections to a
Massachusetts manufacturer. They won $33 million in Federal contracts
and regulatory breaks from this administration, while the firm and its
officers raised or gave a total of $132,000 for the President and his
party in the last election.
{time} 1500
It goes on to say that Mr. Knight is the epitome of a new generation
of money men in both parties whose works does not end with the
election, it really just begins. This is the influence peddling. It has
nothing to do with money raised or spent legally by Members of Congress
or the Senate for election. This is influence peddling, and there are
laws on the books currently against that.
It was brought up earlier that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Kim] has admitted to raising illegal foreign contributions and is
accepting his punishment. It was further brought up that a gentleman
raised money for Senator Bob Dole's presidential campaign and spent
time in jail. Both are true.
The Justice Department worked fast, swift, and sure against
Republicans. But what has it done against Charlie Trie or John Huang or
the lady from Thailand, whose last name escapes me? It has not even
begun hearing them. The gentleman who helped Senator Bob Dole's
Presidential campaign was in jail before. John Huang has not even been
questioned.
If the Justice Department worked as meticulously and as quick in the
questions of Democratic abuse as it does Republican abuse, we would not
be having this discussion.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that
defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the
minority wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as
non-germane to this rule. So the vote is without substance. The
previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close
debate on this rule and proceed to vote on its adoption. The vote has
no substantive or policy implication whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record, I insert an explanation to
the previous question.
[From the House Rules Committee]
The Previous Question Vote: What It Means
The previous question is a motion made in order under House
Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House
used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect
of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution
to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at
the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of
legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A
Member might think about ordering the previous question in
terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote
on the bill or amendment before it?
In order to amend a rule (other than by using those
procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against
ordering the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the
Floor over to the Minority party.
If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then
recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control
an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment
may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor
then moves the previous question on the amendment and the
rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote
occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as
amended.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appear to have it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 238,
nays 189, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 393]
YEAS--238
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
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
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
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
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
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
Markey
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
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
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
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--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brown (CA)
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
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
[[Page H7316]]
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
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
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--6
Brown (FL)
Evans
Foglietta
Furse
Gonzalez
Schiff
{time} 1532
Messrs. MARTINEZ, MORAN of Virginia, and BROWN of Ohio changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PAPPAS, SMITH of Oregon, SAXTON, and DOOLITTLE changed their
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 [Mr. LaHood]. The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 228, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2016) making appropriations for
military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 9, 1997, at page H7084.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]
and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] each will control 30
minutes.
The gentleman recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
General Leave
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2016, and that I may
include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the conferees completed this agreement in a short 10
minutes with no disagreement. We have emphasized in this conference
report family and unaccompanied housing, daycare centers, hospitals,
and those quality of life issues that affect our men and women in the
services.
There is no disagreement on the conference report. We feel it will
move rather quickly without a great deal of discussion.
I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Hefner], my counterpart and former chairman of this
subcommittee, for the remarkable work he has done in helping to bring
this about, and to all members of the committee and subcommittee, both
on the Democrat and Republican side. It has been a bipartisan effort to
put this conference report together.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
[[Page H7317]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16SE97.000
[[Page H7318]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16SE97.001
[[Page H7319]]
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to echo what my friend the gentleman
from California [Chairman Packard] said, and also compliment the staff
for an excellent job, as well as all the members on the committee.
This is a good bill. It goes toward the things we are so concerned
about, the quality of life for our men and women in the Armed Forces. I
would urge all Members to vote for this conference report, because it
is not controversial and it is something that is good for our men and
women in the service.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate conference committee
report on H.R. 2016, Military Construction Appropriations for FY 1998,
secures funding for the replacement of the fuel pipeline at Andersen
Air Force Base on Guam. This is good news for the people of Guam.
Recent information relayed to my office indicated that funding for
the pipeline relocation project was in danger of being withdrawn in
favor of a Military Housing Project. The jet fuel pipes in question are
currently installed above ground and are largely located outside
Andersen Air Force Base. Had funding for the project been cut, the
safety of the military and civilian population on Guam would have been
threatened. In addition, leaving these pipes exposed would hinder
economic development on Guam due to blockage of access areas. This is
why I am greatly relieved that the conferees decided to restore funds
for the pipeline project.
While, the pipeline relocation project is of prime importance to the
people of Guam, however, I remain concerned that funds were restored at
the expense of military housing improvements. I would like to assure
everyone that the quality of life for our service members on Guam
remains a priority and that I will continue to try securing funds for
the project in the future.
In addition, I am happy to see that some $80 million has been
earmarked for barracks improvements in Korea. During my trip to Korea,
I actually witnessed the dilapidated condition of their living
facilities. The funds designated for this project will surely be
welcomed and will improve the quality of life for our troops in Korea.
The Conference Committee also appropriated millions of dollars worth
of add-ons for Guard and Reserve activities. However, none of the funds
were made available to the Guam Army National Guard. I would like to
call to everyone's attention that, due to lack of funding this year,
the Guam Army National Guard continues to hold the distinction of being
the only National Guard Unit that does not have an Armory. This is
something that should be of concern to everyone and some thing that
should be in everyone's agenda for the next fiscal year's
appropriations.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the final
conference version of the FY 1998 Military Construction Appropriations
Bill, H.R. 2016, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
413 to 12 earlier today. As chairman of the House committee which
crafted this legislation, I can attest to the bi-partisan, cooperative
spirit in which we have worked to bring this bill before Congress. My
colleagues and I have worked to ensure that this legislation is both
fiscally responsible and effective in addressing the needs of our armed
services. The overwhelming support H.R. 2016 received today is clear
proof of this legislation's merit.
The Military Construction Subcommittee appropriates funds for family
housing, troop barracks, medical facilities and other items essential
to the quality of life for our soldiers and their families. While the
members of my Subcommittee are responsible for producing a bill that
helps protect our national security, we are also compelled to honor a
commitment to take care of those who guard our nation and protect
freedom worldwide. Mr. Speaker, with the approval of this legislation
today, Congress is sending the President a bill that accomplished
nothing less.
I think most Americans would be shocked to see the finest trained and
best equipped fighting force in the world coming home to leaky roofs,
floors with holes and pipes that spew dirty water. Unfortunately, I
have learned during my travel to defense installations both here and
abroad that these unspeakable conditions are often a reality for the
American soldier and his or her family. In fact, over sixty percent of
all family housing in the military is unsuitable. Mr. Speaker, that is
absolutely unacceptable.
More than any other legislation we will consider this year, the
Military Construction Appropriations bill has the most significant
impact on those who serve our nation. This year, our bill directs
nearly $4 billion toward new family housing and improvements of
existing facilities. We are providing $32 million for new child
development centers and $163 million for hospital and medical
facilities. We are also directing $724 million for troop barracks that
will directly benefit over 12,000 service members.
Mr. Speaker, if America wishes to remain the leader of the free
world, we must take care of the men and women who protect our
democratic ideals. I thank my colleagues for supporting this
legislation and urge the president to sign it when it reaches his desk.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7, rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 12, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 394]
YEAS--413
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
[[Page H7320]]
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--12
Barrett (WI)
Campbell
Cubin
Filner
McCollum
Minge
Paul
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Thornberry
Upton
NOT VOTING--8
Brown (FL)
Evans
Furse
Gonzalez
Millender-McDonald
Nadler
Schiff
Smith (TX)
{time} 1600
Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MENENDEZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________