[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9579-H9586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1745
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1119,
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time yielded to
the following Members: The gentleman
[[Page H9580]]
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the gentleman from California [Mr.
Becerra], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], the gentleman
from California [Mr. Condit], the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley],
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard] for the purpose of noticing a question
of privilege not count against the one-half hour yielded to me by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to proceed out of
order.)
Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2267,
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII,
I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct
conferees on H.R. 2267. The form of the motion is as follows:
Mr. ROHRABACHER moved that the managers on the part of the House at
the conference on the disagreeing of votes of the House and the Senate
on H.R. 2267, Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, be instructed to
insist on the House's disagreement with section 111 of the Senate
amendment which provides for a permanent extension of section 245(i) of
the Immigration and Nationalities Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's statement will appear in the
Record.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 278 waives all points of
order against the conference report accompanying H.R. 1119 and that is
the fiscal 1998 defense authorization bill, the most important bill to
come before this body in any given year. The rule also provides that
the conference report be considered as read. This is, of course, the
traditional type of rule for consideration of conference reports and
will allow expedited consideration of this very vital piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the annual defense authorization bill is without
question the most important bill we will consider this year. In doing
our business, that sometimes seems routine, we should never lose sight
of the fact that the number one duty of the Federal Government is the
protection of national security, and that is exactly what this
conference report is all about.
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and
their staffs have done outstanding work. I commend them and urge
support for the rule so that they can get on with the business of the
day.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely imperative that this bill contain
adequate funding for the young men and women in uniform who are right
now out in the field standing vigilant on behalf of all Americans in
Bosnia, in South Korea and other parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, it is
imperative that this bill set out policies which are consistent with
and seek to maintain the unique warrior culture of the military. For
without that, we cannot win wars and that is what militaries are for.
No matter whether some Members like that or not. Some Members seem to
have forgotten about that in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, to the best extent possible, this bill does all of that.
At $268 billion plus, the bill adds nearly 3 billion to President's
Clinton's wholly inadequate request. The bill adds 3.6 billion to the
President's request for procurement alone, and $570 million for
research and development over and above the President's request, and
that is so very, very important because if we are going to put young
men and women in uniform in harm's way, we had better put them there
with the best that money can buy and research and development can
obtain. These accounts contain adequate funding for the weapons systems
of tomorrow such as the F-22 stealth fighter, the Marine Corps V-22
troop carrier, which is vital to the kind of rapid deployment war that
we will fight in the future, and the next generation of aircraft
carriers and submarines as well.
These accounts also contain funding to bring us one step closer to
developing and deploying defenses against ballistic missiles, something
for which Members will be grateful some day.
This conference report also contains a 2.8 percent pay raise for our
military and it adds significant funding increases for barracks, for
family housing, for child care centers. And, Mr. Speaker, Members
should remember that years ago, when I served in the military in the
United States Marine Corps, 80 percent of us were single. Today the
vast majority of military personnel are married. They have families. It
is absolutely imperative that they have barracks, they have family
housing, and that they have child care centers so that we can expect to
attract the best cross-section of America that we can.
Despite all these excellent provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, let
me again go on record, we continue to provide inadequate, yes,
inadequate funds for this Nation's defenses. This bill will represent
the 13th straight year of inflation-adjusted cuts in the budget. No
other large account in the Federal budget has been cut so much as the
defense budget.
Our military is vastly smaller and older than just 6 years ago when
we had to deploy troops in a place called the Persian Gulf. Most
experts agree today that such a mission would simply be impossible if
we tried to undertake it.
Of course, this is not the fault of the Committee on National
Security. They have operated under severe constraints. It is also not
the fault of the House Committee on National Security that this
Congress, and I want everybody to listen to this, this Congress has
failed to stop Communist China from securing a beachhead in this
country in Long Beach, California. Members all better wake up and pay
attention to that.
The House version of this bill contained a provision that would have
barred the lease of the Long Beach Naval Base to Communist China's
intelligence-gathering shipping company named COSCO.
But at the intense insistence of a Democrat Member of the other body,
the provision has been watered down with a Presidential waiver, and we
all know that President Clinton will use that waiver.
Mr. Speaker, this is a scandal of huge proportions. This Communist
Government which tried to buy the 1996 election in this country may now
be handed an intelligence-gathering facility on American shores. I
never heard of such a thing and never believed it could happen in this
Congress. What have we come to?
A bitterly ironic part of this story, Mr. Speaker, is that private
groups in California may yet succeed in denying COSCO this lease
through a court injunction. According to press reports, the City of
Long Beach is now looking for other tenants. Is it not something that
the city of Long Beach may bail us out, we, the Congress? Think about
it.
Private citizens can block Communist China from securing a beachhead
on American soil on environmental and historical grounds, but this
United States Congress cannot stop China on national security grounds.
It is truly a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, because of one or perhaps a few Members of the other
body, this Congress has been disgraced. I resent it.
Despite all this, I nonetheless urge support of the rule and this
conference report today. It is vital legislation, and it is simply the
best we can do at this juncture. And once again, I would commend the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums] and the Committee on National Security and
their staffs for their excellent work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report
on the
[[Page H9581]]
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1998. This
conference report provides funds essential to sustain force readiness,
for the critical weapons systems and equipment that will ensure the
continued superiority of the U.S. military, and for increases in pay
and allowances and for other necessary quality of life improvements our
men and women in uniform and for their families.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this conference report authorizes the programs
that make up our military strength today and which will ensure that our
forces remain second to none in the 21st Century.
Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement does take a forward look on the
needs of our military in the new century. First and foremost, the
conference agreement contains a 2.8 percent pay increase for the
military and provides for funding for construction and improvement of
troop and family housing. The agreement also contains a consolidation
of housing allowances, stabilizes service members' pay for those times
when service members participate in training exercises or are on
deployment, and provides increases in the family separation allowance
and hazardous duty incentive pay. These are all important matters that
increase moral and will hopefully help retain the valuable services of
men and women who serve this country in uniform.
The agreement provides funding for the acquisition of seven V-22
Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The V-22 is designed to replace the Marine
Corps' aging fleets of CH-46 helicopters and will transport Marines and
their equipment into combat. The conference report provides $2.1
billion for continued research and development and $74.9 million for
advanced procurement for the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is the next
generation air superiority fighter which is yet another system in the
overall arsenal of the U.S. military which will take us into the new
century in a position of power.
Mr. Speaker, the conferees have authorized $331 million for long lead
time related to the procurement of additional B-2's, or for
modification and repair of the existing B-2 fleet, should the President
certify Congress that additional aircraft are not needed by the Air
Force. An important part of the conference agreement relating to the B-
2 fleet is the requirement that the Secretary of Defense ensure that
all necessary actions are taken to preserve the option to build more B-
2 bombers until the panel on long-range air power, established by the
fiscal year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act submits its report to
Congress. I am gratified that this language will ensure that all of our
options remain open while the issue of our long-range air power needs
is studied.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report that deserves
the support of every Member of the House. I commend this rule providing
for its consideration and urge its adoption in order that the House may
proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, I defer to the
Members named in the unanimous consent agreement to give notice to the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to proceed out of
order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
found to be largely without merit, including his charges of
improper voting from a business, rather than a residential
address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of
unusually large numbers of individuals voting from the same
address. It was found that those accused of voting from the
same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of
nuns; that business addresses were legal residences for the
individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana Zoo;
that duplicate voting was by different individuals; and that
those accused of underage voting were of age; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United states that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the privacy rights of United States citizens have
been violated by the Committee's improper use of those INS
records;
Whereas the INS itself has questioned the validity and
accuracy of the Committee's use of INS documents;
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas the Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and have all the information they
need regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information they need to make a judgment concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9
months of review and investigation failed to produce or
present any credible evidence sufficient to change the
outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is now,
in place of producing such credible evidence, pursuing never
ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has after nearly 1 year
not shown or provided any credible evidence sufficient to
demonstrate that the outcome of the election is other than
Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it:
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
{time} 1800
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Under rule IX, a resolution
offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or
the minority leader as a question of privileges of the House has
immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] will appear in the Record at
this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. MENENDEZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Am I to understand the Speaker to say that by Thursday
of this week that this resolution would be brought to the floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker will inform the gentleman of the
scheduling within that time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Further parliamentary inquiry, is it my understanding
that it can be no later than Thursday of this week, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. MENENDEZ. And further parliamentary inquiry. What notice will the
Member receive that the resolution will be forthcoming?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The leadership will give timely notice to
the gentleman.
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
[[Page H9582]]
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] will
appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez has been duly elected to represent
the 46th District of California; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met only on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that going from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will be inserted in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton] will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26th, 1977 in
Washington, D.C. on April 19th, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the Committee on the House Oversight has issued
unprecedented
[[Page H9583]]
subpeoneas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
compare their records with Orange County voter registration
records, the first time in any election in the history of the
United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to
verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas or review; and
Whereas, the Committee on the House Oversight should
complete its review of this matter and bring the matter
forward for the House of Representatives to vote upon: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] will
appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to speak out of
order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I
hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California has met only on February 26, 1997
in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end:
Now, there, be it
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two
legislative days after the resolution is properly notice.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-
Allard] will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
{time} 1815
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Hooley of Oregon was allowed to speak out
of order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I
hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as a duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C., and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning these
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
[[Page H9584]]
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its disposition, the
contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon
the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] will
appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was allowed to speak out of order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a
question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, a contested election contest has been pending
between Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and Mr. Robert Dornan
since December 26, 1997; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California has only met on February 26, 1997
and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C., and on April 19,
1997 in Orange County, California; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business rather than a residence address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal
residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of
the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgments concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9
months of review and investigation failed to present credible
evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] will
appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dooley of California was allowed to speak
out of order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule
IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which
raises a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California has met only three times; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting
from a business, rather than a resident address; underage
voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number
of individuals voting from the same address. It was found
that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks
and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were the
legal residences of the individuals, including the zoo keeper
of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different
individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and
Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are
now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials
already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of
State of California; and
Whereas the Task force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make judgment concerning those votes;
and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9
months of review and investigation failed to present credible
evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
There was no objection.
The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a
Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate
precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution
noticed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] will
appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the
resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That
determination will be made at the time designated for
consideration of the resolution.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Westerville, Ohio [Mr. Kasich], who a number of years ago came to this
body. He has since proven himself to be one
[[Page H9585]]
of the most respected and distinguished Members. As a matter of fact, I
can only recall disagreeing with him one time. It was on a little
airplane, but beyond that, he has always been right.
Mr. KASICH. A little airplane that cost $2 billion apiece, but
nevertheless.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed the conferees did not reflect the
clear will of the House in the conference report's provision dealing
with Bosnia. The mission of the U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia has been
characterized by a failure to define achievable objectives, a
unilateral shifting of deadlines and a refusal on the part of the
administration to clearly explain its goals either to Congress or to
the public at large. If the American people are to have any confidence
in our national security policy, that policy must be honestly and
forthrightly presented to them.
I am troubled by the unclear focus of the mission and the apparent
lack of an exit strategy. The underlying premise of the original
mission was to separate the warring parties, then turn the peacekeeping
role over to our European allies within one year.
In November of 1995, in his address to the Nation regarding our
proposed commitment of forces to Bosnia, President Clinton said that
our participation should last about one year. However, in November of
1996, the President announced that our military presence in Bosnia
would be extended for another 18 months, until June 30 of 1998.
Secretary of Defense Cohen has emphatically stated his understanding
that U.S. forces would be withdrawn by the end of June of 1998.
However, on September 23 of this year, National Security Adviser Berger
cast serious doubt on this second deadline.
It was against this background on June 24, 1997, that the House voted
in overwhelming numbers to prohibit funding for U.S. ground forces in
Bosnia after June of 1998. This strong show of support for setting a
date certain for withdrawal came just after the House rejected an
amendment to withdraw our forces by December 31, 1997. Together, these
votes demonstrated the consensus in the House that we should wrap up
our Bosnia deployment.
The conferees' decision to abandon a firm withdrawal date in favor of
language merely requiring presidential certifications for the Bosnia
mission to be extended for an indefinite period of time after June 30,
1998; in other words, there is no limit, we have accepted a much weaker
position, not only weakens the House position but it offers further
scope for yet another extension of the Bosnia mission.
It is a generally accepted premise that the President is the sole
organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations
and that Congress generally accepts a broad scope for independent
executive action in international affairs.
{time} 1830
But Congress has long been concerned about U.S. military commitments
and security arrangements that have been made by the President
unilaterally, without the consent or full knowledge of Congress.
Throughout our Nation's history, prior Presidents have sought
Congressional consent for extended deployments of the United States
Armed Forces overseas, either through declarations of war or by acts of
Congress authorizing specific deployment.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to
declare war. These powers were explicitly given to Congress in order to
prevent the President, in his role as Commander in Chief, from using
the Armed Forces for purposes that have not been approved of by
Congress on behalf of the national security interests of the American
people.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President empowered to deploy U.S.
Armed Forces for war or beyond our borders without the consent of
Congress. It is generally agreed, however, that situations of imminent
or immediate danger to American life or property may arise that would
give the President the power to act without previous Congressional
consent. But the extended deployment to Bosnia hardly qualifies for
such unilateral action.
President Clinton, by ordering the deployment of our military into
Bosnia without the consent of Congress, has assumed that the making of
war is the prerogative of the executive branch. But the raising,
maintenance, governance and regulation of the deployment and use of the
Armed Forces of the United States is the prerogative of Congress.
Not only does the conferees' weakening of the House position undercut
Congress' legitimate authority to work its will on a vital foreign
policy matter that involves the commitment of substantial U.S. military
forces, it comes precisely at a time when the international
organization, the international force, is clearly drifting deeper into
the quagmire in the Balkans, rather than preparing to disengage from
it.
During the last three months, that force has become more and more
entangled in efforts at nation building, a flawed objective as well as
an inappropriate use of combat forces. For example, those troops are
increasingly becoming involved in Serbian interparty politics, the
takeover of police stations and the censorship of television
broadcasts. These recent actions compromise our status as neutral
peacekeepers and jeopardize the primary mission of separating the
former belligerents. More important, they endanger American lives in
much the same way as our poorly-thought-out policies in Somalia and
Lebanon.
The administration has compounded the difficulty of a confused,
evolving mission in Bosnia by the lack of a clear exit strategy. When
Henry Shelton testified in the Senate during his confirmation hearing,
General Shelton admitted he had not been informed about the exit
strategy for Bosnia. It is likely that to the extent an exit strategy
exists, it is so firmly tied to hazily defined future political events
that there is always sufficient reason to leave U.S. troops in place.
Finally, our mission in Bosnia raises troubling questions about
allied burden sharing. The bottom line on the burden sharing is this is
in the vital interests of Europe, but is not really the vital direct
interests of the United States, and it does not follow that U.S. ground
troops must be tied up there for years. If the Europeans truly have the
will to maintain peace in Bosnia, they will find a way, and the
administration should press the Europeans to begin planning now.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if the President of the United
States attempts to extend the mission in Bosnia beyond June of 1998, I
will come to the House floor and do everything I can to work with the
chairman of the Committee on Rules to end that deployment. This is a
mission with no clear objective, no exit strategy, and no reasonable
goal of accomplishing a mission. Frankly, it is difficult to know what
the mission is because the administration has never defined it. This is
a prescription for failure and a risking of the lives of U.S. men and
women in Bosnia. The President should get us out.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for the purposes of agreeing with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]
and commending him for his statement.
Mr. Speaker, I am the vice president of the North Atlantic Assembly,
the parliamentary arm of NATO. At a NATO meeting just 2 weeks ago, I
informed our 15 other NATO allies that by June 1998, we will have been
in Bosnia for 2\1/2\ years; that this was not going to turn into
another Vietnam; that we were not going to continue to leave our troops
there indefinitely at great expense to our military budget; and that
the NATO allies had better begin to make plans to solve a European
problem, a European problem being a civil strife within sovereign
boundaries of a country, and that NATO should not be there trying to
solve civil matters, trying to be peacemakers.
So I just wanted to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for
his statement. We will speak to this further. We have spoken to it
twice already on the floor of this Congress, and we will speak to it
again in the months to come, that those troops must come out of there
no later than June 1998.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member on the Committee on
National Security.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
[[Page H9586]]
Mr. Speaker, first, this is a very straightforward rule, one hour of
debate on the conference report. I have no problem with the rule.
Secondly, I would like to say to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] that there is a different perspective
and point of view on Bosnia. This obviously is not the time nor the
place for us to engage in substantive debate on that matter.
With the balance of the time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, for the
purposes of colloquy, engage the distinguished gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Hefley].
There is considerable concern, I would like to say to my
distinguished colleague from Colorado, at both the local level and the
Federal level, that the environmental cleanup proposed by the
Department of the Army for the Presidio in San Francisco will not meet
the environmental health and safety criteria appropriate for a national
park.
The Presidio, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is the only base closure to
convert to national park use, and it is important for the Army to meet
the cleanup levels set by the National Park Service.
I would encourage the committee to work with the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] in urging the Department of the Army to
expedite its environmental remediation efforts at the Presidio. This is
a clear case where there should be an accelerated cleanup that meets
the requirements of the national park to ensure the public health and
safety of the millions of visitors there.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that my colleague has
raised and will work with the committee, and with him, and with the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to ensure an appropriate
cleanup for the Presidio.
We have this problem with a number of bases around the country, but I
think this one has a unique factor connected with it. I think the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has pointed out what that
factor is, and that is that this is a national park. We want to move
forward in creating this, and, if we are going to do this, we want it
to be a good national park. We cannot do that without the cleanup.
I share the gentleman's concerns and will do everything I can to work
with him and solve this problem.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his thoughtful remarks and response. I would just like to further
for the record make the following comment.
Significant philanthropic efforts are under way at the Presidio where
sizeable pledges have been made to the National Park Service. In
addition to the potential threat to philanthropic interests, it would
be difficult for the Presidio Trust to meet its self-sufficiency
requirements without a timely and thorough cleanup of the Presidio.
Securing the leases necessary to generate revenues is essential to the
success of the trust, and can only be accomplished if the cleanup is
timely and thorough.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado for his final
remarks.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised very important concerns, ones
which have also been voiced by the Committee on Appropriations in two
of its measures. We will work together to resolve these questions to
ensure the success of the Presidio.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this has been
an important colloquy.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Rodriguez], a member of the committee.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that this is no
compromise. It is like someone stealing your wallet and then offering
only to return a few dollars. The bottom line is, this is not an
appropriate agreement we can deal with.
The language in this bill prevents fair competition for Defense
Department maintenance work. This means higher costs for U.S.
taxpayers. I repeat, the depot language in this bill will cost the
taxpayers money.
We just completed a competition for work done at Kelly Air Force
Base. Warner-Robins Air Force Base in Georgia won the contract, at a
savings of $190 million. The language in this bill would prevent us
from seeing such savings in the future.
Without the ability to conduct a fair public-private competition, the
Air Force and Defense Department will not be able to fund the
modernization program needed for our military to remain superior.
Whether one thinks we should be spending additional money or not for
national defense, everyone should agree that we should use every dollar
most effectively.
The language in this bill is to the contrary. It makes public-private
competition next to impossible. Supporters of the language freely and
proudly admit that it will make it too expensive and too restrictive
for the private contractors to bid on depot work at San Antonio and
Sacramento. The deck is stacked against free competition and against
the U.S. taxpayer and military modernization.
It should come as no surprise that the most punitive restrictions
fall on the competition workload at the closing depots in San Antonio
and Sacramento. Private bidders must comply with arcane rules not
imposed on the public bidders, so we do not have a level playing field.
The Depot Caucus believes this work should go to the depots,
regardless of cost and regardless of what the Defense Department needs.
They are protecting their home turf, and I respect that, but it is also
bad policy, and this is not what we should be supporting. It puts our
troops at a disadvantage.
The Secretary of Defense and his military commanders need the
flexibility on the current law to modernize. To do so, they need to
have the ability to take the best and most appropriate public or
private bid.
Let us not tie the Pentagon's hands with a requirement on design,
because, at the end, it is only to protect the existing bases that are
there now. It will be at the expense of modernization and at the
expense of readiness. A vote against the defense authorization bill is
a vote for competition and for the future of our military readiness.
Mr. Speaker, there is also evidence in the newspapers by some
individuals indicating that on the contracts that are out there,
``Contractors will have to include in their bids millions of dollars of
costs that were previously required.'' I think this will make it
unlikely that the contractor will even bid.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me interrupt this debate to yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss]
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
____________________