[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.

                          ____________________