[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.
____________________