[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8882-H8884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2204, COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 265

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2204) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999 for the Coast Guard, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 401 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 
     7 or rule XVI or section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     of any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], 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.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 265 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1997. The purpose 
of this legislation is to authorize the activities and the programs of 
the Coast Guard for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation. The rule also contains a minor waiver of 
the Budget Act, waiving section 401 of the Budget Act of 1974 against 
consideration of the bill.
  Section 401 prohibits consideration of legislation providing new 
entitlement authority which becomes effective during the current fiscal 
year. This waiver is needed because the bill removes the cap on 
severance pay for Coast Guard and warrant officers. The provision is 
meant to conform the Coast Guard with the other services; no other 
Coast Guard officer or other service's warrant officer has a cap on 
severance pay.
  The rule also makes in order the Committee on Transportation's 
amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, which shall be considered as read.
  There are two minor waivers needed for the committee substitute. The 
rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI relating to germaneness, and section 
401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The germaneness waiver is needed for an amendment adopted during full 
committee consideration of the bill which recognizes the community of 
Grand Haven, MI as Coast Guard City, U.S.A., and the budget waiver is 
needed because the committee substitute retains the severance pay cap 
removal that is in the original bill.
  Further, the Chair, Madam Speaker, is authorized to grant priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record. In addition, the rule allows for the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of 
the bill, and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if 
the vote follows a 15-minute vote. In addition, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  The Coast Guard is the primary Federal agency with maritime authority 
for the United States. It is a complex organization of ships, aircraft, 
boats, and shore stations. Title 14 of the United States Code provides 
that the Coast Guard is at all times an armed force of the United 
States.
  I believe the Coast Guard has a very difficult task in carrying out 
its main missions of law enforcement, maritime safety, marine 
environmental protection, and national security. An average day for the 
Coast Guard includes, among other things, saving 32 lives, assisting 
308 people, saving $8 million in property value, conducting 142 search 
and rescue missions, responding to 34 oil or hazardous chemical spills, 
conducting 128 maritime law enforcement boardings, identifying 97 
violations of law, seizing 84 pounds of marijuana, and 148 pounds of 
cocaine. That is an average day for the Coast Guard.
  The Committee on Rules hearing on this bill I think was extremely 
cordial. It was bipartisan. I am told that that is an accurate 
reflection, Madam Speaker, of the manner in which the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure handled the legislation, as well.
  The bill was reported to the House by voice vote, as was the rule. I 
would like to commend both the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], as well as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], for their hard work on the 
bill.

[[Page H8883]]

  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 265, I believe, is a fair rule. It is 
completely open. I would urge its adoption.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] for 
yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this very 
noncontroversial bill and this open rule. As Members know, the Coast 
Guard was established in 1915. Today 82 years later, the Coast Guard is 
still protecting people at sea and enforcing U.S. law. It is a great 
organization and it is well worth funding.
  Today's bill authorizes $3.9 billion for the Coast Guard's operation 
this year, which is the President's request plan plus an additional $70 
million for drug interdiction activities.
  The 37,000 members of the U.S. Coast Guard provide this Nation with 
invaluable maritime service for everything from search and rescue to 
drug interdiction, and this $3.9 billion, Madam Speaker, will support 
their good work.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], the chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], ranking member, for putting together a truly bipartisan bill 
which should pass this House with very little opposition.
  Madam Speaker, I have heard very few complaints on either side of the 
aisle about the bill, which will provide for marine safety, waterway 
safety, and maritime safety. This bill will also clarify the rules 
about oilspill liability and provides $5.5 million for the new ports 
and waterways safety system which is replacing the vessel traffic 
service 2,000 program.
  Madam Speaker, this bill also provides funds for drug interdiction, 
ice breaking on the Great Lakes, repairs of buoys, and operation or 
removal of bridges that impede boat traffic.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will enable the Coast Guard to continue its 
great work, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of may time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] a member of the 
Committee on Rules and chairman of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the subject of 
the Coast Guard because it is an agency of great importance and great 
concern to the quality of life of our Nation and particularly to the 
people in Florida.
  The Coast Guard is very well known for the good work it does. It is a 
wonderful agency. In times of war, the Coast Guard plays an integral 
role in the defense of our country. In times of peace, it has got so 
many missions it is hard to account for them all, but basically the 
safety of our boaters up and down our coastlines, well-being of our 
fisheries, providing for navigational aids, and emergency assistance. 
Those types of things are well understood and necessary, and they do a 
good job on it.
  Madam Speaker, less well known, and the reason I wanted to speak 
today, is the vital role that the Coast Guard plays in the war on 
drugs. In a recent congressional hearing we heard about the reemergence 
of Florida as a drug transshipment route. We are sorry to hear it. This 
is not good news, and it is something that demands an immediate 
response.
  I was encouraged to hear of the greater coordination we have now 
among the Coast Guard, the DEA, and our Customs folks in dealing with 
this problem. If we are going to be effective, we need to have 
everybody working from the same page in the war on drugs. It is 
certainly not going to be enough to settle for a stalemate in the war 
on drugs. We just had that debate, and we are not going to settle for a 
stalemate. We are going to need to get serious about winning that war, 
and the Coast Guard is going to be a major player in that.
  The Coast Guard does fight in the frontlines in the war on drugs, and 
for that reason this particular bill is very important. I commend the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and 
open rule and get on with the business of making this in order.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule because it does not allow for the consideration of campaign 
finance reform on the House floor. I ask my colleagues to vote to 
defeat the previous question so that the Committee on Rules can make in 
order the consideration of a debate on campaign finance reform.
  Madam Speaker, I do not oppose this bill and would not otherwise 
oppose this rule. But I do not believe that we should move forward with 
other legislation without a commitment on campaign finance reform by 
this House.
  My colleagues and members of the public who have been watching the 
House floor in the past month or two by now are familiar with the 
problem. The Republican leadership in this House, Speaker Gingrich and 
Majority Leader Armey, refuse to allow us to debate and to vote on 
campaign finance reform legislation. Apparently, they like the system 
the way they have it and they refuse to allow us to consider bills to 
reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns.
  Because of their refusal to allow debate on campaign finance reform, 
we are forced to take extraordinary measures. We are forced to do what 
we are doing today, to debate campaign finance reform on a rule dealing 
with the Coast Guard. But the nature of campaign finance reform is such 
that we must act. If we do nothing, simply let the current system 
continue. And we know that that system is repugnant to the American 
people, and, in fact, threatens the public interest and our Democratic 
institutions.
  And with each passing day that the Republican leadership blocks 
reform, the influence of money over legislation, over elections, over 
what committee Members sit on or are allowed to serve on, every 
decision made in Washington grows worse and worse. Money, politics, and 
influence becomes tighter and tightly controlled.
  This week, for example, it is reported that the Senate Republican 
leaders gathered to discuss their legislative agenda for 1998. A normal 
meeting. One would expect them to plan ahead. It was reported that one 
of the key issues for the Senate Republican leaders would be whether or 
not to design a legislative agenda that would stand a chance of winning 
approval by the President or whether to use next year to raise issues 
that would galvanize the core Republican constituencies, even if they 
stood no chance of approval.
  Madam Speaker, foremost in the minds of that group was to use this 
legislative agenda for the purpose of generating money for the 
Republican Party. Now, that is a little bit different. Now we are not 
just talking about issues; we are talking about whether or not the 
agenda can be used to raise money, as if to erase any question over the 
influence that fundraising is to have on setting the agenda.
  The meeting reportedly was held at the Republican fundraising offices 
here in Washington. Here is what was reported by Congressional 
Quarterly Monday morning. Quote, ``A prime topic of discussion is 
whether to devote the early months of 1998 to legislative priorities 
that have no chance of winning President Clinton's signature, but would 
energize the GOP's conservative base as the primary season begins and 
Senate incumbents try to beef up their bankrolls for the fall.''
  They try to beef up their bankrolls? We are going to use the Senate 
floor and the Senate agenda and the time of the Senate and the House 
and the people's Congress, to beef up the bankrolls of Republican 
Members of the Senate? That is why the Senate majority leader, that is 
why Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, went there. They went 
there to decide how to put together an agenda that would allow the 
Republican Senators to raise money? That is what the House of 
Representatives and the Senate has come to? We are not talking about 
doing the people's business; we are talking about doing the business of 
people who give

[[Page H8884]]

money in large chunks to the Republican Party?

  Madam Speaker, that is why we need campaign finance reform. That is 
why we are having to debate this issue on a bill dealing with the Coast 
Guard, because the Republican leadership in either House will not allow 
this debate to take place.
  I find it rather interesting that the same people who were in the 
meeting talking about setting the agenda to raise campaign money for 
Republican Senators were the same Senators who engineered the defeat of 
the McCain-Feingold bill, a bipartisan bill to reform this system. 
These same leaders in the Senate engineered the defeat of that 
legislation over the last 2 weeks.
  Madam Speaker, we are here to tell our colleagues that campaign 
finance reform is not dead either in the House or in the Senate. We are 
going to continue to pursue the Republican majority in the House and in 
the Senate to give us a vote, to give us the debate on this issue.
  If necessary, we will resort to a discharge petition. We will have to 
force them. We will have to get a bipartisan coalition in this House, 
218 signatures to force this leadership to give us a debate. What we 
are asking for is a debate and a vote on campaign finance reform.
  That is what the House of Representatives is supposed to be about. 
That is what the Congress is supposed to be about. It is about the 
people's House. The people have spoken now in opinion poll after 
opinion poll. They are disgusted. They are disgusted with the way that 
elections are financed in this country. They are disgusted with the 
fact that now soft money means access. It not only means access to the 
White House; it means access to committee chairmen who are making 
multibillion dollar decisions about telecommunications, about energy 
deregulation, about clear air, about global warming. It is all about 
access. And if a contributor can write a $100,000 check, they can get 
it and the rest of the American public cannot.
  Madam Speaker, that is why we are forced to debate this, but we are 
not going to let the people who engineer on one day the death of 
campaign finance reform and then run downtown to the Republican 
headquarters and talk about using the people's legislative body as a 
fundraising tool. We thought it was bad enough the other day when the 
Republicans sent out a letter and said for $10,000 a contributor could 
have lunch, breakfast, or dinner with the 10 most important Senators 
who are interested in meeting for $10,000. It is more than about ham 
and eggs. It is about the legislative agenda. Now they have gone from 
sending out letters to designing the legislative agenda for the 
purposes of fundraising.
  Madam Speaker, I thought that if making a phone call is a problem, 
what about designing an entire agenda and using the Senate of the 
United States for the purposes of raising money and doing it with 
forethought? That is why we need campaign finance reform.

                          ____________________