[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8884-H8890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Chair must caution the 
Member against improper references to the Senate or its members.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, if my time has not expired, 
the problem is when I look at the polling numbers, if I said ``the 
Senate majority leader'' no one in the country knows who I am talking 
about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must refrain from such 
references.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we have brought to the floor a rule that is completely 
open, that permits all amendments. While we were in the minority it was 
very rare to get the majority, then the Democrats, to permit an open 
rule so that all amendments could be introduced, on a subject, by the 
way, as important as the Coast Guard, where the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules, admitted that that function is a primary function of national 
security and law enforcement.
  So, Madam Speaker, we come to the floor today with a totally open 
rule to permit any and all amendments from any Member of this House on 
a subject as critical to the national security of the United States as 
the authorization of the Coast Guard and what are we confronted with? 
We are confronted with what we just heard. No one could ever accuse the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] of lack of 
imagination, because even on a bill as necessary to the national 
security as this one, even on a rule totally open, which permits 
amendment by any Member of this House, we have heard what we have heard 
today on an issue that has nothing to do with the Coast Guard.
  Madam Speaker, I remind all our distinguished Members that we are 
debating an open rule to authorize that critically important organism 
of this country, institution of this country, which is the Coast Guard. 
That is what we are on today, Madam Speaker. I do not want to get 
confused. We are not going to let ourselves get confused by these 
arguments which seek to confuse, apparently, people who are not Members 
of this House and they will not get confused either. We are bringing an 
open rule permitting all debate on this critically important piece of 
legislation to this country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I am going to make reference to the 
previous speaker, the gentleman from California, saying that the 
leadership of both Houses of Congress are discussing at this time 
anything else, discussing the issue of campaign finance reform when 
they should be discussing the issues of the Nation.
  I want to say emphatically that the issue that the leadership has 
been discussing in recent times are the issues of what the Coast Guard 
needs in the Arctic Ocean in February. They are discussing how the 
Coast Guard has more influence and can more effectively deal with the 
pollution problems of the coastal waters of the United States and the 
inland seas of the United States. The leadership of both Houses is 
discussing the major problem of cargo ships bringing in enslaved 
immigrants by criminal thugs and how they can get to the shores of the 
United States and perform more effectively their criminal activity.

                              {time}  1645

  And how does the Coast Guard, made up of very young men and women, 
stop that? We are talking about a whole range of issues that deal with 
the Coast Guard. The leadership of both Houses of Congress are talking 
about welfare reform. They are talking about IRS reform. They are 
talking about how to improve agricultural practices. They are talking 
about a lot of things.
  Last, Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from 
California, when we are talking about campaign finance reform, each and 
every Member of this House, as individuals, as representatives of their 
district, have always the option of how they are going to run their 
campaign and how they are going to raise their money. So if the 
gentleman from California does not like the present legal system of the 
way campaigns are funded, he can simply do what he wants. He could stop 
taking PAC money. He could stop taking money from anybody from his 
district. He could do what he wants.
  Each of us, as Members of this House, should tell our constituents, 
this is what I am going to do as a person, regardless of what Congress 
can or cannot do, I am going to stop taking all money except for those 
people who can vote for me. I will stop taking PAC money. I will stop 
taking money from outside of my district. I will stop taking special 
interest money. I will stop accepting soft dollars into my district. I 
will only take money from someone who is registered in my district to 
vote in my district, regardless of what the Congress does.
  The leadership of this Congress has been talking about issues 
relating to the American people and, I might add, in the last 2 or 3 
years, doing a fine job. I would remind the American people that 
sometimes the rhetoric on the floor would make a Shakespearean play 
look pretty dull, but look through the rhetoric at some of the details. 
We are talking about how to protect the coastal waters of the United 
States.

[[Page H8885]]

 This rule, as the gentleman from Florida has suggested, is open. All 
amendments are possible on this particular rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], majority whip of the Democratic Party.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend the Committee on Rules, both 
parties, for providing us with a rule that is open and allows us to do 
the things that my friend from Maryland talked about and that is help 
with the exploring and science and fighting pollution, dealing with the 
immigration problems and that our national defense needs, those are all 
very good things. But I think my friend from Florida may have just a 
wee bit stretched the procedural argument that he made that this has 
nothing to do with political campaign reform.
  We have no objections to dealing with the Coast Guard issue. It is an 
important issue for the country and for all of us. But what we will 
attempt to do is allow that to happen, but at the same time, when that 
is finished in our rule here, we will ask that the House consider 
campaign finance reform and the variety of proposals that have emanated 
from both political parties.
  There have been some very good suggestions on this side of the aisle, 
as well as on our side of the aisle. What the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] is objecting to, what I am objecting to, and if I may dare 
say so, the American people have been objecting to, is the fact that 
this system is broke and this Congress, in both House and Senate, is 
not willing to face up to the broken system and fix it. In fact, we 
have not even faced up to the fact that we want it to be debated, 
debated.
  This is not the first time that we have come to the floor to do this. 
This is the sixth time in this session that we are demanding a vote on 
campaign finance reform. We asked that the same procedure be initiated 
on the 7th of January, 13th of March, 19th of April, 16th of April and, 
I think, the 21st of May.
  We will attempt to defeat the previous question in order to bring 
finance reform to the bill, campaign finance reform. It is not about a 
specific proposal. It is about having a debate so we can come to some 
conclusion to try to fix what I think is a rotten system, a rotten 
system. Every one of us knows in our hearts that we spend too much 
time, too much energy seeking campaign contributions in order to stay 
here and do not devote enough time to the work at hand.
  It is a system that has gotten both political parties in enormous 
trouble. It is a system which has caused the people of this country to 
lose faith in this institution. It is a system in which Members of both 
bodies would prefer not to have. And yet I must say, I watched that 
handshake between the President and Speaker Gingrich, when was it, a 
couple, 3 years ago. They were going to do something about it.
  Well, nothing is being done. The Speaker says that the problem is not 
too much money, but too little money. We ought to be spending more. 
Well, that is nonsense. That is absolute nonsense and it is not a 
prerequisite in a democracy today. Nine out of ten of the American 
people think we spend too much and we spend too much time raising it 
and it is corrupting this institution and our democracy. We need to fix 
this system, Madam Speaker. And we need to limit the amount of money, 
stop this negative advertising and get the American people voting once 
again.
  If other democratic nations can do it, we can do it. Just across the 
border from my district in Canada, the political season is much 
shorter, the airwaves are free. Campaigns are publicly financed, Great 
Britain, Ireland. We ought to be able to craft something that is fair 
to both sides.
  I would say to my Republican colleagues, you should not be afraid to 
have this debate. Voter cynicism does not just hurt us, it hurts you as 
well. It undermines our democratic institutions and who we are as a 
people and why we came here to serve. I suspect that we will lose once 
again today. It is the nature of the situation here. But as my friend 
from California said, campaign finance reform will not die. And we will 
attempt to bring it to the floor of the House of Representatives with a 
discharge petition. That means every Member of this body will have the 
opportunity to walk over to the Clerk here and sign a petition that 
says, we want all the issues related to this most important issue on 
how we run our democracy and how we finance it, we want it on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. And we will have a list of those who 
want to reform the system and those who want the status quo.
  Finally, in just one word to my friend from Maryland, who I have a 
deep respect for for his work on the environment and education and some 
other issues, I admire him as well as the gentleman from Florida. But 
he makes the argument, well, you know, if you really want reform, do it 
yourself. That ignores the situation where someone will unilaterally 
disarm, limit their campaign contributions while their opponent is able 
to play by the present, I think, rotten and corrupt system and raise so 
much money that the scales are not balanced nor are the elections. We 
have to have a level playing field where we are playing by the same 
rules.
  To suggest to us on the floor today that you ought to just take it 
right out of your district, the fact of the matter is, if some of my 
colleagues decided to just take contributions out of their own 
districts and their opponent decides to take it out of the country, 
there are districts in this country that are so poor that it would not 
be a contest financially.
  I could make a lot of arguments
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, the comment about taking money just 
from one's district, I do that now. I do not take any PAC money, no 
money unless a person can vote for me. I did that in 1992, when I ran 
against an opponent, an incumbent of this House, who spent a lot more 
money than I did. It is still possible to win.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, it is possible to win and the gentleman is 
an example of that happening. But there are districts, and the 
gentleman, I think, will concede this, where it is extremely difficult 
to raise the money to be competitive in a congressional race within 
that district itself. I think the gentleman understands that. That is 
the dilemma that we face if we are not all playing by the same rules.
  So let me just conclude, Madam Speaker, by suggesting that our 
colleagues vote against the previous question so we can bring this 
issue to the floor and we can have a full and honest and fair debate so 
our Republican colleagues, as well as our Democratic colleagues, can 
offer the suggestions to reform the system so we know where we are. 
Maybe we will not resolve it. Maybe we will not come to a conclusion. 
Maybe we will not have the votes to pass anything. But at least we will 
have some sense of where we are in this debate and where the center of 
gravity is in terms of where this Congress wants to go and where the 
public wants us to go. We owe that to the American people. We owe that 
to the institution that we serve in and we certainly owe it to the 
people who sent us here.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  It is with great interest that I listen to the minority whip as we 
talk about what our priorities should be as those who are duly elected 
representatives of the citizens of the United States. In fact, Madam 
Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would join me in this realization, that those who aspire to public 
office should obey existing law. And unfortunately, the scenario that 
is played out here, listening to the whip, my friend from Michigan, 
listening to my colleague from California, is one akin to a speeder 
pulled over by a traffic cop.
  Now, I know many policemen who patrol the highways and byways hear 
all sorts of excuses. But never have I heard them relate to me that 
when they pull over a speeder, the speeder says to the

[[Page H8886]]

officer, well, you may have a posted speed limit of 55 or 65, but that 
is just not adequate. That law should be changed. That law should now 
be 95 miles an hour. And sadly what is going on in this Chamber, Madam 
Speaker, and going on, I regret to say, at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue is a massive effort to misdirect the attention of 
the American people.
  Campaign finance reform, indeed, that is a subject that should be 
discussed. But not to sacrifice, indeed, some, Madam Speaker, might use 
the word ``obstruct,'' not to sacrifice the legitimate priorities of 
funding our Coast Guard, of maintaining the integrity of our borders 
and indeed to maintain the integrity of our electoral process, Madam 
Speaker. This should be the framework under which we operate, obedience 
to existing statute.
  Sadly, Madam Speaker, what this is about, I regret to say, is the 
presence of some in the White House. And here we see the President and 
First Lady in this picture with one Johnny Chung who seems to be 
unavailable to come before committees in this House and in the other 
body and freely explain to the American people his role in the 1996 
campaign. So let me say candidly, Madam Speaker, to my friends on the 
other side, to all of my colleagues in this Chamber and indeed to the 
citizens of the United States, let us first exercise our legitimate 
oversight to find out exactly what went on in 1996, to find out exactly 
what went on within the executive branch, to find out when this 
gentleman is so pleased to be standing with the first couple, to get to 
the bottom of these very disturbing questions.
  If we are to prioritize, it would seem to me that we would start with 
the numerous concerns, suspicions and allegations sadly confronting 
this administration. Madam Speaker, there are many lessons to be 
learned from history. I lament the fact that some of my colleagues have 
drawn the wrong conclusions from what transpired nearly a quarter 
century ago.

                              {time}  1700

  Because in that era there were those who talked of stonewalling, 
there were those who talked of the absurdity of the limited modified 
hangout. And in stark contrast, quite frankly, to the behavior we see 
displayed today from Members of the minority, two people from my State 
had the guts and the gumption to go to the White House in 1974 and 
request that President Richard Nixon resign. Oh, for a true spirit of 
bipartisanship, not borne out of temporary convenience but of 
constitutional conviction.
  This is not a game. Serious questions remain. Yes, we should take a 
look at campaign finance reform from stem to stern, but first we must 
find out who violated, who is under suspicion of violating the rules 
that now apply in everyday law.
  And, moreover, Madam Speaker, we should not try to turn this question 
of a legitimate security question to our national boundaries, to a 
branch of our service, to funding of the Coast Guard for the preening 
and posing of partisanship in the hopes that those allied with those 
who would obfuscate and try to run away from the problem might find 
temporary advantage.
  Let us adopt the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, we can all parade up to the well of the House and 
present our favorite photo of a political leader who we may disagree 
with because of some alleged impropriety. I suspect Members on this 
side of the aisle could, and have I suspect, done the same thing with 
the Speaker of the House [Mr. Gingrich], with his improprieties that 
found him sanctioned by his Republican colleagues as well as our 
Democratic colleagues.
  I suspect we on this side of the aisle could do the same thing where 
the former chairman of the Republican Party, Haley Barbour, who was 
engaged in raising foreign funds in the last campaign. I suspect we 
could even do that with members of the Republican Party who are 
presently engaged in similar problems as Members of the House of 
Representatives. But that really does not get us to where we need to 
go. Where we need to go is to have a full and honest debate about the 
ways to reform the system.
  I would invite the gentleman from Arizona, who just spoke, to join 
his Senator, Senator McCain, in sponsoring the McCain-Feingold bill, 
and join those of us in the House who want to bring this debate to the 
American people. We know how that argument goes, how it plays out in 
the end, the one that the gentleman propounded on the floor just a 
minute ago: Let's find out before we do anything.
  We have had really 20 years of this system and we have found out. It 
has gotten many, many people in trouble. It has reduced the number of 
people in this country who have faith in the system and who have voted. 
It has in many ways had a very, very negative influence on how people 
operate in public life.
  And so I encourage my friend from Arizona to get on board. We are 
going to have a line out here on Friday of people signing a discharge 
petition. I assume we maybe even will have a few Republicans, and we 
encourage the gentleman to be right in front of the line and he can be 
that running back that I never was.
  I played at the University of Iowa, and I was a kind of a small guy, 
but I was always looking for somebody to plough that hole open. He can 
plough that hole open for his party by getting in line and joining us 
in signing the petition.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I appreciate the reminiscences of the distinguished 
minority whip as to his athletic career, a great athletic career that 
continues even today, as we have seen him on the baseball diamond and 
on the basketball court.
  Let me also invite the minority whip, Madam Speaker, and others on 
that side of the aisle, to join with me, with my own campaign finance 
reform bill, the nickname is ERIC, election reform in campaigns, and 
let them also, Madam Speaker, join with me to reaffirm the basic first 
amendment rights of members of voluntary associations, trade 
associations, and union associations not to have their dues taken from 
them against their will to be used for political causes in campaigns 
with which those members may not agree.
  I would hope that we would move forward in that debate. But for now, 
and the question before this House now, we dare not turn a deaf ear or 
a blind eye to the funding requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard and the 
legitimate national security concerns therein.
  And, Madam Speaker, on the subject of national security concerns, it 
entirely proves my point that we should assess just exactly what has 
transpired when foreign nationals, indeed with suspected 
representatives of foreign governments coming to peddle their influence 
in Washington and sadly in the last cycle allegedly at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Oh yes, let the committees, Madam Speaker, conduct their oversight. 
Let the chips fall where they may. Let us end the obfuscation and what 
sadly has become the misdirection. Let us put our priorities in order.
  Campaign finance? Sure. But legitimate constitutional congressional 
oversight first for very disturbing questions of national security and 
alleged improprieties that cannot be erased no matter how fond the 
athletic reminiscences.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire what is the remaining time 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Like all my colleagues who have spoken, I too would like to see 
campaign finance reform brought to the floor of this House and done so 
immediately. I rise, however, to raise another issue.
  I think that the Coast Guard bill is a good one, but I raise a 
concern that has

[[Page H8887]]

adversely affected the Chicago area, which I represent. For many years 
the Coast Guard Air Station helicopter facility located in Glenview, 
IL, patrolled southern Lake Michigan, an area with a high volume of 
recreational traffic. Recently that facility was relocated to Muskegon, 
MI, more than 100 miles away.
  Under the current setup, it takes a helicopter twice as long to get 
from Muskegon to the Chicago area as it did from Glenview. Some 
authorities have contended that moving the unit out of the Chicago area 
has dramatically compromised the safety margin for those persons who 
frequent the lakefront.
  A recent Chicago Sun Times article reported that during the past 
year, 26 people have died on southern Lake Michigan as compared to 4 
deaths during the previous year. It has been observed that the number 
of deaths on southern Lake Michigan have continued to spiral upward 
since the Coast Guard's decision to relocate to Muskegon.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the U.S. Coast Guard will reevaluate 
this move, which is possibly responsible for a number of senseless 
deaths. I would also request that the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation review this location site. A site closer to the 
Chicago metropolitan area could save many lives.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to respond to the gentleman who spoke about the transfer 
of the helicopter in the Chicago region. I do not see him on the floor 
now, but I do want to say that this is an area that we have considered. 
We certainly will try to obtain more funding so the Coast Guard can 
have more helicopters.
  It is my judgment that the Coast Guard, for the past several years, 
has been, in fact, underfunded. So we are going to correct this in the 
next cycle, so that we hope with that increase in funding the 
helicopters can be in more areas than they are now.
  Now, one of the reasons that the Coast Guard helicopter was moved 
from this gentleman's particular area to another area is because of the 
assessment of where most of the accidents occur. Most of the accidents, 
clearly over 90 percent of the accidents that the Coast Guard responds 
to, they respond with small boats, not helicopters. There is only a 
small percentage of the accidents where they actually use helicopters, 
but the helicopters are moved to those areas that need that type of 
assistance more, and that is a judgment by the Coast Guard. But I 
assure the gentleman it is an area that we are taking under serious 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can just go back to our favorite subject, I suppose 
at least for some Members, campaign finance reform, I would like to 
remind my colleagues on the House floor that each of us, regardless of 
what the regulations are regarding the Federal Election Commission, and 
regardless of whatever regulations there are out there for campaign 
finance fundraising, each of us, as individuals, can eliminate the 
entire system at the snap of a finger.
  What is good about this country is that it thrives on individual 
initiative and individual responsibility. So if a Member thinks the 
system is bad or corrupt, or whatever they think about the system, I 
would like to remind my colleagues that they can simply stop taking 
money from everybody; from PAC's, from interest groups, from unions, 
from trade unions. Just name it. Just stop taking all those dollars 
that might be tainted or might be corrupted and run the campaign 
without taking any money or just from people that vote in the district.
  In 1990 I won an election. I was very honored to come to the House of 
Representatives. And I defeated an incumbent. I was a candidate and I 
defeated a 10-year incumbent who had a lot of money. I figured if I 
wanted to get to Congress, I had to create a strategy where I could 
meet as many people as possible and convince them that I would be a 
better Member of the House of Representatives.
  It takes a lot of work, a lot of courage, a lot of planning as an 
individual, using one's own initiative. So if we do not like the 
system, then we can change it ourselves.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Allen].
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, talk, talk, talk. That is what we have been doing about 
campaign finance reform. It is time to vote, vote, vote. That is what 
we need to do in this House. We would not need to talk so much about 
campaign finance reform if the Republican leadership of this House 
would bring this matter to a vote.
  And if I could just respond briefly to what the gentleman from 
Maryland was just saying, about we can always do it our own way. When 
we play tennis, we play by the rules. When we play football, we play by 
the rules. We do not make up individual rules for individual players.
  What we need in this body is, we need a vote on a bipartisan campaign 
finance reform bill. We know enough about what went on in the 1996 
elections to know that we need to do something different.
  I am a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
chaired by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. We have spent $3 
million for 1 day of hearings; $3 million for 1 day of hearings.
  And when I was back in my home State of Maine this past week, I heard 
over and over again the same refrain: We are tired of these 
investigations. We want to get to the bottom, but we are tired of 
investigations with no legislation. We want to see Members of Congress 
do something for us people back home.
  Now, there are not many Republicans who are on a bipartisan campaign 
finance reform bill, but my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 
Asa Hutchinson, is cochair with me of our freshman bipartisan group. We 
produced a bill. We went through a 5-month process. It was a bipartisan 
effort. We ban soft money. We take the biggest of the big money out of 
this system.
  We have put together a bill with no poison pills. We took the poison 
pills out. And I think that is the kind of legislation that ought to 
come to the floor of this House; that we ought to give every Member of 
this House a chance to stand up and vote, not just talk about campaign 
finance reform.

                              {time}  1715

  I believe that if we do that, if we ban soft money, if we take the 
biggest of the big money out and we make sure that the parties have 
enough money to keep going so they can fulfill a role, if we make sure 
that every group, every group that wants to participate in this system 
by way of a third-party advertisement has to disclose who they are, has 
to disclose how much money they are spending. Then the American people 
will know more about what is going on in this political system and they 
will be able to deal with it.
  I sense in my home State a crisis of confidence in this political 
system. I also sense a real impatience with this Congress for all of 
the talk and no action. The fact is that if we bring this matter to a 
vote, then we can move this question ahead. For that reason, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question and bring 
campaign finance reform to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. May I remind the House that this is the rule to bring the 
Coast Guard authorization bill to the floor?
  We do not have other speakers on this side, but my understanding is 
that the other side wants to talk about issues that have nothing to do 
with the Coast Guard. Of course it is a democracy that we live in, Mr. 
Speaker. People when they rise can speak about anything they wish. That 
is one of the beauties of the system, Mr. Speaker. But I think it is 
important for the Members who may be trying to find out what the debate 
is about, what we are on here, dealing with, what we are on the floor 
dealing with.
  This is the rule, which is an open rule, and during the many years 
before we acquired the majority, Mr. Speaker, there were very few open 
rules. Open rules are rules that bring bills to the

[[Page H8888]]

floor with the opportunity for all Members to offer amendments on that 
legislation. That is something that we cherish, that is something that 
we fought for. Since we are in the majority, we are able to do it. We 
are able to bring legislation to the floor with what are known as open 
rules, which are guidelines that permit any and all amendments, any and 
all amendments by any Member to the legislation that is brought to the 
floor. What we are bringing to the floor with this open rule is the 
authorization of the Coast Guard, which is critically important to the 
national security of the United States, which is critically important 
to law enforcement, which is critically important to drug interdiction, 
issues that are obviously essential for the American people.
  So we are bringing to the floor the Coast Guard authorization law, 
bill, legislation with an open rule. I wanted to remind Members of the 
fact that that is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. Of course since it is 
the United States of America, since it is this wonderful free Nation of 
laws, people can come to the floor and talk about whatever they wish 
when they are given time by the Speaker. But I wanted to remind any 
colleagues who may be watching on their screens in their offices or the 
American people what it is that we are seriously doing here today, and 
it is serious, reauthorizing the Coast Guard, protecting the American 
people from narcotics, helping the national security. That is what we 
are doing by bringing forth the Coast Guard authorization and we are 
bringing it forth, we are bringing it to the floor with a rule that 
permits any and all amendments obviously that have something to do with 
the Coast Guard; in other words, that are germane.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform both Members that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what everyone said. I 
heard what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] said and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and all. I must admit I do not 
see anything wrong with it. I have voted no on most of the 
parliamentary motions that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has made concerning campaign finance reform, but I think it comes to a 
time that we have to make up our mind, are we going to have a debate? 
Are we going to have a vote on campaign finance reform? I think I have 
waited long enough. I think most of the other Members have.
  You turn on TV, you listen to the radio, you read the newspaper, and 
the entire country is talking about campaign finance reform. They are 
not just talking about what has happened at the White House. They are 
talking about what has happened in all congressional districts, in all 
States in the United States. They know what other countries have done 
when it comes to campaign finance reform, and they know what we have 
not done in the United States of America. And the American people know 
the influence of big money on political campaigns. It has gotten to the 
point in time where people buy elections. They do not earn elections 
anymore. They buy elections.
  We also know the disparity of income between the haves and the have-
nots. We know that that is growing daily. We know that the middle class 
is being squeezed now. And we know also that a lot of people are not 
even participating in the electoral process anymore. Why are they not 
participating? I think they are not participating because of the 
influence of big money.
  I say to the Republicans and I say to the Republican Party, let us 
have a vote, let us have a debate, let us have it now, not later, 
because it is in the best interests of the American people.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any other speakers at 
this time. I would just remind the Members who may be tuning in that 
this is the Coast Guard authorization, the open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule because it does not allow for the consideration of campaign 
finance reform on the House floor. I do not oppose this bill and I 
would otherwise not oppose this rule, but I do not believe that we 
should move forward with other legislation without a commitment to 
campaign finance reform by this House.
  More than 300 Members of this House have signed on to various 
campaign finance reform bills. Nearly everyone has an idea and they 
have worked hard to turn those ideas into legislation. The evidence is 
before this House. There are 87 different campaign finance reform bills 
before this House. But not a single one of these bills has made it to 
the floor for debate, not a single one of these bills, not one of the 
87 has even been considered in a committee hearing this year. Mr. 
Speaker, there are 435 Members of Congress and 311 of them have signed 
on to various campaign finance bills. That is 72 percent, a majority of 
the Members. And a majority of Americans are pleading for reform. Yet 
these pleas are not being heard by the majority party.
  Our counterparts in the Senate, they did not have much success but at 
least they tried. At least they brought it to the floor. Let us do the 
same here, Mr. Speaker. Let us bring some of these 87 bills to the 
floor for debate. Nearly three-quarters of this House is asking for it. 
Nearly three-quarters of this House is a sponsor of a campaign finance 
bill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] in calling for and signing a discharge petition so that we can 
get the issue before this body for debate and before this body for a 
vote. We certainly owe it to our constituents to have a vote on 
campaign finance before we adjourn and go back to our districts.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I include for the Record an explanation of the previous 
question, as follows:

               The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that: There shall be a motion for the previous question, 
     which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if 
     a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] was 
really on point in this debate which was brought up by our 
distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle in this open rule 
on Coast Guard; in other words, on nothing that had to do with the 
Coast Guard. But the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], in setting 
the record straight, I think had a very interesting point and that is 
the analogy of the policeman who stops someone who is speeding because 
the speed limit is 50 miles an hour and then when the person is 
stopped, the person wants to change the law. This law is very bad, yes, 
it is true I was going 70 miles an hour, but I think it should be a 30-
mile-an-hour speed limit. That is an excellent point because that is 
exactly what we are dealing with here.
  The allegations that are being made and that are being substantiated 
on a day-in and day-out basis are very serious. These allegations have 
to do with selling of influence to enemy dictatorships. I think few 
allegations can be more serious. And so when we have an analogy about 
stopping someone for going 50 miles an hour, remember the 50 miles an 
hour that we are talking about. We are talking about selling influence 
to enemies of the United States being the 50 miles an hour. And yet 
saying, oh, no, no, the law is bad, make it 30 miles an hour.

[[Page H8889]]

  So yes, we can debate and we will very happily debate this issue, but 
the bottom line is that today what we are doing is something else that 
is very important to the United States; by the way, very important, Mr. 
Speaker, to the national security of the United States as well. And 
that is authorizing the Coast Guard.
  And so we bring forth to the floor the legislation to authorize the 
Coast Guard with the opportunity for all Members of this House under 
what we call in this House an open rule, an opportunity for any and all 
Members to bring forth any amendment that is germane, that is relevant 
to that legislation. That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. That is 
what we ask at this moment, that the resolution, the rule be accepted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, the majority argues that our attempt to defeat the 
previous question is futile because our proposed amendment is not 
germane. The fact of the matter is that the Chair has not made a ruling 
nor heard our arguments as to the germaneness of our amendment. The 
only way to make that determination is to allow us to offer the 
amendment by defeating the previous question.
  This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a 
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
  A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least 
for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.
  It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
  The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive 
policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those 
who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative 
plan.
  I include the following material for the Record.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives,'' (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
                                                                    ____


             H. Res. 265--Previous Question Amendment Text

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Section 2. Before the House adjourns sine die for the 
     first session of the 105th Congress, it shall consider 
     campaign finance reform legislation under an open amendment 
     process.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  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 that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 196, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 515]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     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
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     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
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     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
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello

[[Page H8890]]


     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Cubin
     Dellums
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     McIntosh
     Neal
     Schiff
     Shadegg
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1748

  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MORELLA and Mr. SCARBOROUGH 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. Dickey). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________