|
|||||||
| Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-and-a-half-years collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. | |||||||
16 July 1998
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Congressional Record: June 18, 1998 (House)]
[Page H4739-H4748]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr18jn98-83]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.RES. 463, ESTABLISHING SELECT
COMMITTEE ON U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY/COMMERCIAL CONCERNS
WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 476 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 476
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 463) to
establish the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and
Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of
China. The resolution shall be considered as read for
amendment. The amendment in the
[[Page H4740]]
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules
now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The resolution, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as
amended, to final adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. Of course, during consideration of
the resolution all time yielded is for debate purposes only.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a rule providing for consideration of
House Resolution 463 to establish the Select Committee on United States
National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's
Republic of China.
This rule provides 1 hour of debate on the resolution, divided
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules. And right now, that is being filled in by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the resolution
shall be considered as adopted. The rule further provides that the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this rule passed by voice vote in the Committee on
Rules, as did the underlying resolution, and I would hope that we can
dispense with the rule expeditiously and proceed with the debate on the
resolution itself.
Mr. Speaker, the debate over the next several hours will revolve
around one question and that question is how seriously do we in the
House take the national security of the United States?
This Select Committee proposed to be created by this resolution will
address an issue over which I have had many concerns for at least a
decade, and that is the transfer of technology which has military value
to Communist China.
I have opposed this policy since it began during the Reagan
administration under my hero, Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the
Challenger disaster. But until recently, my differences with Presidents
Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have been strictly policy differences. And
naturally people can disagree.
Now, over the past few months, we have seen startling revolutions
that have brought us to this unfortunate point where we need this
Select Committee to sort out what appears to be both a national
security fiasco threatening the very security of this Nation of ours
and our American citizens, and of course, a potential scandal. I will
elaborate on and document those revelations during the next debate
after we finish this rule.
Mr. Speaker, it suffices to say that we now know that the United
States' national security has been harmed and indeed it has been
breached by this policy. And that despite knowing this, and despite a
Justice Department investigation of the Loral Company's actions vis-a-
vis China, the Clinton administration allowed this policy to continue
in February by granting a waiver to Loral to export yet another
satellite to China. My colleagues ought to pay attention to this and
just how important that is.
We also know that Loral has connections to the White House and that a
Chinese military officer, listen to this, a Chinese military officer
involved in the satellite launch business in China attempted to buy
influence with the United States Government. That is reported in every
newspaper across this country. The New York Times, the Washington Post,
all newspapers.
Mr. Speaker, also in the next debate I will elaborate on some
testimony we heard in the Committee on Rules last night from Jim
Woolsey, who is President Clinton's first CIA director, now retired.
Members are going to be shocked at what we are giving to the Chinese in
the name of business, or should I say ``business as usual.''
The bottom line is that our technology store is open and the Chinese
have been buying it. They have been buying the future security of this
Nation. We need to find out how and why this happened and what damage
has been done to this country. Is this simply a policy failure of
massive proportions or is there more to it?
This is what we have to consider in this legislation. Mr. Speaker,
the subject matter of this inquiry is of such grave importance that it
warrants treatment outside the existing committee system which
continues to serve this House well.
{time} 1230
But there are eight standing committees involved with some 295
Members. You would never be able to get to the bottom of this if you
left it up to each individual standing committee. There is no way that
we could perform. That is why the need for this Select Committee that
we propose to establish here today.
The proposed resolution defines the scope of the inquiry and it sets
forth the methods, the procedures, and the budgetary components of the
Select Committee's work. The resolution does not represent an open-
ended commitment. The Select Committee must wrap up its work by the end
of the 105th Congress and report to the House.
That, again, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons for forming this
Select Committee now. We all know that, after next week, the House will
break and go home for a work period over the 4th of July for a couple
of weeks. We will then come back and work the remainder of July. Then
after the first week in August, we will be off, back in the district
again. When we return after Labor Day, there will be about 1 month left
before Members have to return to their districts to finish their
campaign for reelection or election this coming November.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule so we can get on with
the debate and on whether we should create a special panel to answer
what I think are very, very alarming questions. Every other Member
should think so, too.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to establish a Select Committee on
U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
People's Republic of China.
A variety of allegations about our relations with China have surfaced
in the press in recent months. These include the illegal transfer of
missile technology to China by an American company, a substantial
campaign contribution to the Democratic National Committee from a
Chinese military officer through an intermediary, and the question of
the effect of the political contributions by the CEO of an American
company which manufactures satellites launched on Chinese missiles.
At this stage, these are allegations and not proven fact. The purpose
of this Select Committee is to determine the facts to the extent that
this is possible. There are some Members on the other side of the aisle
who would presume that every allegation ever printed or ever aired by
the media is true. To do so does injustice to our colleagues who will
serve on this committee and to the individuals whose names have
appeared in the American press.
The Democratic National Committee denied that it ever knew any funds
received by it came from a Chinese military official and returned the
funds promptly. The Justice Department has an ongoing investigation
into the question of the possible illegal transfer of missile
technology by the Loral Corporation and has not yet reached a
conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, the entire practice of licensing the export of
satellites, manufactured by several U.S. companies, to be launched on
Chinese missiles was initiated in the Reagan administration and was
implemented and continued during the Bush administration. I would like
to make perfectly clear that this practice did not originate in the
Clinton administration, although the manner in which sanctions waivers
had been granted is a legitimate matter for investigation.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, who has
made substantial contributions to the Democratic party has denied that
there was ever any quid pro quo for contributions for sanctions waivers
involved.
[[Page H4741]]
On all these matters, Mr. Speaker, we should not presume a conclusion
before the Select Committee has been authorized, its members named, and
before it ever meets.
Clearly, there is a valid reason for the establishment of this
committee. We need to get to the bottom of all these questions.
Hopefully, it will be done in an objective and fair manner and will not
become a partisan witch-hunt.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned that the mandate of this
Select Committee is very broad, and I intend to discuss this issue when
we debate the resolution creating the Select Committee. I am concerned
as well about some of the unilateral authorities that have been granted
to the chairman of the Select Committee.
But right now, we are considering the rule for debate on the
resolution creating the Select Committee. I hope my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle will refrain from engaging in a public hanging
of anyone involved in this very important matter until such time as a
Select Committee has met and made its findings and recommendations to
the House.
Mr. Speaker, while I support this closed rule, I note that my
Republican colleagues chose not to allow for the consideration of a
very sensible amendment relating to the funding of the Select Committee
which was proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
Consequently, it is my intention to oppose the previous question in
order that I might be able to offer a substitute rule which would make
the Condit amendment in order.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I have confidence that the designated
chairman of this Select Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), and his designated ranking member, the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks), will conduct themselves and the proceedings of this Select
Committee with the greatest degree of integrity and bipartisan spirit.
They are both known as faithful to the principles of the political
parties to which they belong, but more importantly, they are known for
their fairness and their ability to work for the best interests of our
great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Democratic members of the Committee
on Rules, based on what has happened in the House during the past year
and a half have a number of concerns about the provisions of H. Res.
463. I will address those concerns when we begin the debate on that
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to briefly comment on what was said by my good friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
The gentleman mentioned something about a public hanging, and let me
assure him and everyone else there will not be any public hanging from
this side of the aisle on this matter. This is an extremely important
matter.
I think what we need to be concerned about are cartoons like this one
that are appearing across this Nation. It is a picture of the White
House, and it has a slogan here that says: ``Relax, Hillary. I have
convinced the Chinese to return the technology.'' The return of the
technology is an intercontinental ballistic missile, one of 13 that the
Communist Chinese have today of 18 that they have aimed at the United
States of America.
That is how serious this whole debate is. I for one will not try to
hang anybody here today, especially since we have gone to great lengths
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who will speak in a few
minutes, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks); I do not see
him over there, but both of these gentlemen are two of the most
respected and admired Members of this body.
They are not partisan Members. Certainly, they are excellent
selections by the majority, by Speaker Gingrich, and by the minority
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) to head up this
committee on this vital, vital issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former mayor of Charlotte, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a very important and
distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, in the past month, we have learned that the
President may have turned a blind eye to an issue that caused harm to
our national security by helping the Chinese improve their ballistic
missiles. We have also learned that he may have ignored the Secretary
of State and the Director of the CIA and the Pentagon. Also, the
President may have accepted campaign donations from the Chinese Red
Army at the same time he changed the U.S. policy to benefit China's
missile program.
Mr. Speaker, there may be an innocent explanation for this chain of
events, but the American people have not heard it yet. These are
serious matters, because China has 13 missiles aimed at U.S. cities. It
would be shocking if this is the problem that we believe it is with
national security.
So far, the administration has avoided answering even the most basic
questions about its China policy. So today the House will take the
bipartisan and necessary step of creating a Select Committee to look
into these matters.
I hope and pray we will simply discover an unfortunate set of
circumstances that involves no illegality. But both Republicans and
Democrats in this body recognize that these national security questions
deserve a careful look from a serious, bipartisan panel. I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution to create a Select Committee on
China.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today just to make a few brief
comments. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) asked me to be the
ranking Democratic member on the Select Committee.
I have had a chance over the last couple of days to sit down with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who is going to be the chairman of
this endeavor, and I basically support what we are doing. I think there
are serious questions that need to be investigated, and we need to have
the facts.
I would ask all of my colleagues to try to see if we cannot lower the
rhetoric on this subject. This is not a policy that started under the
Clinton administration. As the chairman of the Committee on Rules
appropriately pointed out the other day in the Committee when we were
discussing this resolution, this policy started under Ronald Reagan and
was continued by George Bush and by Bill Clinton.
Both President Bush and President Clinton granted a number of waivers
to allow our commercial satellites to be launched on Chinese boosters.
I know much has been made about the question of whether there was some
improvement in the overall military capability of the Chinese. Let me
remind the House that the Chinese Communists possess only a handful of
nuclear weapons aimed at the United States. Obviously we worry about
that. It is their effort to have a strategic deterrent.
I would remind my colleagues that we still have 18 Trident submarines
and 700 land-based missiles. We have the B-2 bomber and the B-1 bomber,
which are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. So I find the idea
that somehow the People's Republic of China has gained some military
superiority over the United States as a result of these transfers not
to be accurate.
What I hope we can do is to lower the rhetoric and get at the facts.
Let us look at the facts and find out what happened. The administration
has said that they made these decisions without any concern about
political contributions. We will need to look at that.
We also need to see what the People's Republic of China has been up
to. There are some concerns about that. We also need to look at this
policy. Today, on the front page of the New York Times, there is a
story that the administration is now reviewing a sale of commercial
satellites that is to be made to the People's Republic of China. This
is different from our policy of allowing Chinese launchers to be used
to launch US-owned satellites.
This is another, and I think a very serious issue. I hope that, out
of this, we will go back and look at our policy. Is our policy correct?
Is the policy that President Reagan started and Bush and Clinton have
continued the right policy for the United States? I think that is the
most important issue. We may want to revisit that. I think that is
certainly something that we will look into in this investigation.
[[Page H4742]]
I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules and my
Democratic friends on our side of the Committee for all the work that
they have done to try and help and cooperate. I feel very sorry for my
good friend and colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit)
because his amendment was not made in order. He is going to speak on
that.
I would say one final thing. Some people use the Iran contra model as
the way we should proceed. Remember, in the Iran contra model, once the
Select Committee was created, all other investigations in other
committees stopped.
We have too many committees now looking into this subject. I hope
once we create this Select Committee which will have outstanding
Members who are going to do a highly professional job, the House will
let the Select Committee do its job. That is why I share the concern
that we may be spending too much money on too many different
investigations. Let us do one and do it well and do it in a way that
will be of use to the House and of use to the American people.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I urged at the beginning of the consideration of this
resolution that people on the other side not engage in any public
hanging at this point. These are serious matters. They deserve to be
debated. They deserve to be resolved by this Select Committee in a
serious bipartisan manner.
{time} 1245
My colleague from the State of North Carolina, when she got up to
speak, talked about a contribution to the President from a Chinese
official. There was no contribution ever made to the President from a
Chinese official. There was a contribution made to the Democratic
National Committee, which the Democratic National Committee said it had
no knowledge of and returned.
Let us lower the rhetoric and let us go on to the policy questions
involved in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Condit).
(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say I agree with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the chairman, this is a very
important committee, and I support every effort to take a serious look
at the allegations. I think it is serious for this country and we ought
to take it seriously.
But saying that, I would like to speak just a moment to my amendment
that was in the Committee on Rules yesterday that was denied. And I am
really surprised that it was denied, particularly because the other
side of the aisle, on a regular basis, makes statements that they are
interested in saving taxpayers money, and that is what my amendment
did, was try to save some money.
It takes money that this Congress has already set aside for
investigation and transfers it to the Select Committee without changing
the focus, scope or intent of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee is asking for $2.5 million for 6 months. The
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has spent approximately $3
million during an 18-month period. This year the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight has allocated $1.8 million. It shows
approximately $1.5 million remaining in the unspent fund category.
Additionally, of the original $8 million in the special reserve fund,
more than $1.3 million is still uncommitted.
What my amendment simply does is put some attention on this Congress
to pay attention to the money that we spend on these multitudes of
investigations that we do around here; that we ought to pay attention
about duplication, and we ought to have some interest in how we invest
the taxpayers' money.
There is no dispute over here. These are serious allegations. I have
the utmost confidence that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will do everything in their
power to get to the bottom of the issue and, hopefully, resolve this.
But I also want to caution us, it is $2.5 million in 6 months, then we
go to a year and it is another $2.5 million, then we are up to 5, and
who knows where we are going. We need to be mindful of this.
And that is why I encourage my Members, the Members on this side of
the aisle as well as the other side of the aisle, to vote for the
recommit. The recommit simply says, let us take the money that has
already been allocated to investigations and put it toward this special
committee that we are putting together today. It is a reasonable
proposal.
It is not a partisan proposal, Mr. Chairman. It is a sincere proposal
for us to pay attention to how we spend money and to be responsible for
how we do investigations around here.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond.
The gentleman would seem to infer that maybe some people on this side
of the aisle do not care about fiscal responsibility, and I would just
like to remind the gentleman that about 5 years ago I authored a book,
it is called The Balanced Budget, a Republican Plan. It was long before
its time, but it told us how we could balance the budget in 1 year, not
in 7, or 6, or 5, or 4, or 3, or 2.
My colleagues ought to read it, because that is actually the bill
that I introduced back on June 22nd, 1995, that actually did that, and
that is what the Congress finally came around to doing. And, boy, we
had to bite the bullet to vote for those kinds of cuts to get the
welfare spending under control and put this House back in fiscal order.
Let me just say to the gentleman, the gentleman's amendment was not
made in order for, among other things, technical reasons, because it is
not germane; it is an attempt to micromanage another committee, and we
do not allow that.
Secondly, if this resolution were brought to the floor as a
privileged resolution, which it normally would be, and it is how we
have brought other resolutions creating select committees to the floor,
as privileged resolutions, it would be unamendable. So this amendment
would not be considered anyway.
Third, I just want to point out again, and again commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), on the
other side of the aisle, as well as the Democrat minority leadership
and our leadership, because we have worked diligently on a bipartisan
basis to take away all of the partisanship out of this bill.
The question of funding did come up, and we worked with both sides of
the aisle, with anyone that was raising a question, anyone, and we came
up with the language that is in the bill today. At the very last
minute, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit),
brought an amendment up to the floor, after the bill was already
finished and after we had already made all the decisions.
So I think the gentleman does protest too much, and that is why the
gentleman's amendment was not made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on House
Oversight, who waived jurisdiction on this measure so it could come to
the floor in a timely and expeditious manner, and we will let him
explain the funding level.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding
and affording me an opportunity, having waived the committee's
jurisdiction on the funding, to respond to an amendment that is not in
order.
And, frankly, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules did not make
the amendment in order, because as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
said, after all, these are serious matters and it should be debated
seriously, he then yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Condit) who, as part of his appeal on his amendment, brought up the
question of funding in a context which, if anybody objectively examined
his discussion, was to impugn other investigations or the expenditure
of money in this particular Congress by
[[Page H4743]]
the majority for efforts that apparently they believe do not fit the
profile of serious matters debated seriously.
I am sorry the gentleman from California felt it necessary to inject
that, because this gentleman from California would love to remind him,
since he was a member of the majority in the 103rd Congress, at that
time, the committees, in totality, spent more than $223 million.
Now, that is not adjusted for inflation, because, frankly, constant
dollars look good enough, two Congresses later in the 105th we are not
spending 80 cents on the dollar. We are only spending $180 million.
So if the gentleman is looking for savings. The new Republican
majority has provided it both in the 104th and in the 105th. We are not
spending at the level my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
spent.
In addition to that, the amendment that was rejected said that the
money should have to come from another committee in its unobligated and
unexpended context. That money would nowhere near meet the needs of
this particular committee, if that was where the ``not more than $2.5
million'' would be found.
Let me say that the $2.5 million that we are discussing is nowhere
near, when the gentleman was in the majority, the $2.9 million in
adjusted dollars that the Iran contra hearings cost, which produced
absolutely nothing. Our hope is that we get a serious resolution of
what we believe to be a serious matter that will be discussed
seriously.
And finally, let me say this, as the gentleman leaves. In all of
those other previous select committees, not once, whether it was Iran
contra, whether it was the Select Committee on Aging, whether it was
the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, whether it was
the Select Committee on Hunger, not once in those previous Select
Committee creations was there a distribution of the resources, in terms
of staff, two-thirds, one-third, not in any of those instances. Iran
contra, for example, was 80 percent majority, 20 percent minority.
I want to underscore that the chairman of this committee, working
with the ranking member, has committed that outside of those joint
staff, which they will agree to jointly, that the majority will use
two-thirds of the resources and the minority will get one-third. So
that this Select Committee, thank goodness, will not be in the
tradition of the select committees that had been created in previous
Congresses by the previous majority, which hogged all the resources and
did not produce results.
What we have here will be a fair, equitable distribution. We will
have a serious discussion of serious matters.
So I want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Rules and
the other members of the Committee on Rules who saw the wisdom of
voting down this very poorly drafted and constructed amendment, which
would not only invade the prerogatives of another committee, but
frankly, would not provide near the resources that I believe will be
used wisely by this particular committee.
When we begin the discussion of funds and how and where they are
going to be used, if it is necessary to remind the now-minority of
their previous transgressions, we will be more than willing to do so.
If my colleagues provide time on their side to go beat dead horses, we
will keep the record straight. They did not create a fair funding
mechanism under previous select committees, and they spent more money
than this Select Committee. This Select Committee will spend less than
Iran contra, and it will be fairly divided. That is the difference with
the new majority.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in support of the motion that will be
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the Condit amendment.
I share the concerns that many people have said already today
concerning the possibility of U.S. companies providing expertise to
China for use in its ballistic missile programs. I have been concerned
about this kind of technology being transferred for a number of years,
under the last two Presidents as well. However, I have concerns about
the cost of this investigation. This resolution would spend $2.5
million more in additional funds. I believe it should use existing
funds.
In 1993, the House of Representatives had four select committees, and
the Select Committee on Hunger was allocated for a year, every year,
about $600,000. The most expensive of the four select committees in
those days was the Select Committee on Aging, and I believe they spent
somewhere between $1.2 and $1.4 million.
While we need to get to the bottom of this issue on China, I believe
the existing funds in the current legislative branch appropriation
should be used. There is enough money there.
I just want to correct the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) in
what he said when we had the other select committees, that there was
not a fair and equitable distribution of the money. And the fact is,
that is not true. When I was chairman of the Select Committee on
Hunger, we were very fair in our distribution of the money. Two-thirds
of the money went to the majority, a third went to the minority. So the
statement he made was not correct. We were very fair.
I would hope that we would look at the funding of this. This is far
too much money to spend on a select committee. We should go with the
motion that will be provided to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Condit).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to point out to another very distinguished Member, that I respect more
than most, and that is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall). He is
one of the most sincere Members that we have.
But I would say to the gentleman that that is exactly what we are
doing. If the gentleman will look at page 5, it says not more than
$2,500,000 is authorized for expenses of the Select Committee for
investigation and studies. And it goes on to say, out of applicable
accounts of the House of Representatives, which comes out of the
legislative branch appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, New
York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of both the rule and the resolution, and to
say that I am very pleased that in a bipartisan way there has been an
agreement on both the establishment of a Select Committee and on the
funding levels for the committee, and the fact that they will be coming
out of the already appropriated legislative branch measure.
I rise as a very strong proponent of what has been known as the
Reagan-Bush-Clinton policy of engagement with the People's Republic of
China. I still feel very strongly about the need to ensure that we do
maintain contact and engagement and, among other things, normal trade
relations with the People's Republic of China, because I believe the
power of the free market is very, very great, and we should not do
anything that would possibly diminish it.
{time} 1300
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I joined with several of my colleagues
when this issue first came to the forefront, colleagues of mine who
have joined with us over the years, working to make sure that we have
maintained normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China
and we sent a letter to the President, which I would like to share with
my colleagues. And I do so not trying to in any way raise the level of
rhetoric, which I think appropriately both the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have said
that we ought to keep on a balanced level, but to remind our colleagues
why it is that we are here dealing with this issue.
In the letter that was dated May 22nd, we wrote, Mr. President, each
of us has been deeply involved in supporting the policy of engagement
and maintaining Most Favored Nation status with the People's Republic
of
[[Page H4744]]
China. We support a strong and stable relationship that is bolstered by
free market reforms and the seedlings of democratic progress in that
country.
The first and foremost responsibility of the Executive Branch is to
protect national security. Therefore, we are deeply disturbed by the
very serious charges regarding the transfer of rocket technology to
China. These charges call into question the fitness of your
administration to carry out a sound China policy. We have questions
regarding the apparent decision of the administration to place narrow
commercial considerations over national security concerns. The fact
that large campaign contributions were accepted from firms that stood
to gain from such decisions is even more troubling.
Our greatest concern is that your administration has undermined its
own ability to carry out our Nation's foreign policy toward China.
Absent the ability to command respect both at home and abroad, your
administration will not be able to move this critical relationship
forward.
Therefore, we implore you to work quickly with the appropriate
Congressional committees to make available all relevant information
related to the matters in question. It is in our national security
interest to resolve these questions so that we can build support for a
policy of engagement in China that is firmly rooted in our national
security interests.
I strongly support the establishment of this committee, and I support
the efforts that I believe can be addressed and put together in a
bipartisan way.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
I support the creation of this Select Committee. I think we should
have a thorough investigation of the issues surrounding the possible
transfer of sensitive technology to China. What I am opposed to is the
use of Congressional investigations for partisan political purposes and
the waste of taxpayer dollars. It does not serve the American people to
have multiple Congressional committees spending millions of dollars
investigating the very same issue over and over and over again.
Unless we reject this rule and adopt the Condit amendment, we will
have redundant investigations that are wasting millions of dollars
investigating the very same issue.
In March of this year, the Burton committee was given $1.8 million to
continue its investigation of the influence of foreign contributions on
U.S. policies. That was the mandate to the Burton committee. I want to
point out to my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
that, notwithstanding all his complaints about what the Democrats did
not do and how he is doing better in the allocation of money, on that
Burton committee the Democrats were given 25 percent, not the third
that we were all promised by the Republican Party.
But that committee, nevertheless, was given $1.8 million to do this
investigation. A major focus of it was to have been whether
contributions from China influenced U.S. foreign policy and national
security. Now we are going to create a Select Committee and we are
talking about giving it $2.5 million to investigate the very same
issue.
The resolution authorizing the Select Committee specifically directs
the Select Committee to investigate, and I quote, any effort by the
government of the People's Republic of China or any other person to
influence any of the foregoing matters through political contributions.
That is what this Select Committee is going to investigate. That is
what the Burton committee was investigating. It does not make sense to
have a Select Committee investigating the same issues and then to have
the Burton committee investigate it as well.
The $1.8 million given to the Burton committee to investigate these
issues should be transferred to the Select Committee and let the Select
Committee do this job of investigating this matter. We should have one
thorough, credible bipartisan investigation, not multiple, redundant
investigations and use of taxpayers' money for partisan purposes and
wasting that.
One investigation will save the taxpayers millions and prevent this
investigation from being used for partisan political purposes.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my colleague from
California (Mr. Thomas) with respect when he makes reference to when we
were in the majority and Iran Contra investigation. I want to let him
know that I voted with him, I voted with him to reduce the cost of
investigations. I voted with the chairman to reduce the cost of
investigations to bring a halt to that. Welfare reform, a significant
group of Democrats voted with the chairman and with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) to try to save money to try to reform the
welfare proposal.
I am not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue of saving money on
investigations. I have brought this issue up time and time again in the
committee, asking the chairman not to duplicate, not to spend money
twice to get the same information.
When we had the other body doing the investigation, I asked them not
to duplicate. When the other body was doing their investigation, I
consistently asked the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight not to duplicate.
So I tell my colleagues and I tell the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) I am not someone who just comes here today at the last minute
to bring this up. I brought this up consistently. It is a sincere
attempt to try to change the way we investigate each other around here.
Let me tell my colleagues, if they think our side of the aisle did it
wrong so they are going to do it wrong, that is not a good enough
reason. We need to put a stop to this. We need to try to save money
when we can. And we need to not duplicate.
There are a lot of people whose lives are destroyed because we
duplicate and we ask them to do things over and over again and spend
money, and I think we need to be more mindful for the American people
than that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Both Members have 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding and his hard work on this very, very difficult issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express some concerns about the
resolution that we will have before us soon, a resolution to establish
a Select Committee on National Security and Other Concerns with China
before us today. It is a troubling one to me.
The concerns presented here are serious and they are important.
Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to exercise
oversight of policy decisions. Indeed, the Committee on National
Security and the Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on
International Relations are the appropriate venues for such oversight.
When there is a connection between campaign contributions and policy
decisions, that investigation is being done by the Justice Department.
Over the years, I have been proud to work very closely in a bipartisan
fashion with my Republican colleagues on the China issue, including the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), whom I respect very highly and will miss very, very much when
he is going on to happier things. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), who will chair this committee, is one of the finest Members of
this body. I respect his intellect, his sense of fairness and
appropriateness in dealing with these issues. It is not anything
against him that I have the question, but concerns about the nature of
this committee.
I have worked closely with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)
and others who have consistently opposed the current U.S.-China policy.
These people that I mention and others on the Republican side have real
standing in criticizing the consequences of the policies.
As my colleagues know on both sides of the aisle, I have pulled no
punches in
[[Page H4745]]
criticizing the President, whether he was a Republican President or a
Democratic President, for what I think is the wrong China policy. But
as one who has consistently joined with some of my Democratic and
Republican colleagues in raising concerns about the Chinese military
for many years on this floor, I see today's action as a move by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the Republican leadership to
exploit the China issue.
As I say, as one who has worked very hard and long on this issue, I
regret to see that the Republican leadership has just walked lock step
with the Clinton administration on China and, as responsible as
President Clinton is and his administration is, on the consequences of
that China policy.
Allowing U.S. satellites to be launched on foreign rockets is a
policy started under President Reagan, continued under President Bush
and President Clinton. So if there is a criticism of the consequences
of that policy, then the blame should be laid at the feet of both
parties in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, again this year the Speaker could not move
quickly enough to support the President's request for a special waiver
to grant Most Favored Nation status to the People's Republic of China.
He sent a letter of support to the President almost before the request
for the special waiver reached Capitol Hill.
I see this Select Committee as an attempt by the Speaker to seek
cover for his affiliation with the President on the China policy. Do
they think we have no memory? Do they think we do not know what we say
on the floor year in and year out by the proliferation and the Chinese
mobilization and their interest in acquiring U.S. technology and then
all of a sudden the obvious, predictable consequences of that policy,
obvious and predictable to many of us, is all of a sudden being
investigated by a Speaker who, day in day out, time and time again, and
at every opportunity has supported ignoring those concerns?
And so, I see this as an attempt to set up this committee as venue
hopping. There have been investigations. I can show my colleagues a
stack of reports on committees investigating this issue.
As I say, I believe, and I do not deny Congress's right to oversight,
to investigate, and to be relentless in doing that in terms of the
consequences of policy.
Establishing this Select Committee to me, after all the sweat and
strain and work that we have put in trying to educate Congress to the
dangers of the policy that the Republican leadership has supported year
in and year out, looks to me like a cynical and hypocritical act which
does a disservice to the debate about U.S.-China policy, cost the
taxpayers money, and wastes Congress' time.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
so that the proposal of Mr. Condit can be considered to fairly fund and
fairly consider how we should go forward with this.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the flattery
and to return that flattery twofold, because we have great admiration
and respect for her, as well, especially on the issue of human rights
around this world.
I would just point out to the gentlewoman, though, that I, for one,
have been a critic of previous administrations as well as this
administration, even back in 1988, when Congressman Solomon,
Congressman Kemp, Congressman Bob Walker, Congressman Lewis wrote to
then President Reagan pointing out the serious problems that might
occur from military technology transfer and know-how.
On June 13, 1989, that happened to be, I think, 9 days after
Tiananmen Square, which the gentlewoman has certainly done everything
in her power to try to focus attention on, I introduced legislation
that would prohibit the export of satellites intended for launch
vehicles from China.
This House adopted that language in the form of an amendment. It went
to the Senate. The Senate washed it down; and, consequently, it never
became law in its present form. And today the result is that we have 13
intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the United States of
America, and that is so serious.
{time} 1315
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield briefly to the gentlewoman from California
because I am running out of time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and,
heeding his admonition about the time, I want to say, I said in my
remarks that he has standing to speak on this issue. I am very glad
that he put on the record the fact that Republican Presidents supported
this policy, which he opposed consistently under Republican and
Democratic Presidents. It is with admiration for him, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
who will represent the Democrats very well on that committee, indeed
the American people on that committee. It is not about personalities.
It is about the policy.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just further say if she had been in
the Committee on Rules when we had the former CIA Director under
President Clinton, Mr. Woolsey, and the former National Security
Adviser under President Reagan; they both pointed out that under
Presidents Reagan and Bush that the Secretary of Defense did not raise
warnings at that time, the Secretary of State did not, the National
Security Adviser did not, because of the situation at the time.
Today the times have changed and we all know that the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisers both
have raised warnings, and yet President Clinton did not heed those
warnings, for whatever reason, and that is what we really want to look
into.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just clear up a couple of points. First we have
heard that this is a question about granting waivers and others have
granted waivers. That may be the case. But never before in the history
of the Republic have we had the question of the influence of foreign
money into the process. That is one of the key issues here. Never
before have our intelligence, our Department of Defense and our defense
process and our national security been so threatened or questioned by
allegations that have been made about intrusions into the system.
Let me also say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) who
spoke about 25 percent of the staff being given by the majority to the
minority. When I came here in the first Congress, from 1993 to 1995,
they gave us five investigative staffers for their 55 staffers. That is
the record. That is the fact. As a matter of fact, the Burton committee
has operated efficiently and at lower cost, assuming the
responsibilities of two additional committees and done all their
investigations in an administration that has been plagued with more
scandals than any in the history of, again, the Republic.
It is somewhat like it is the Republicans' fault that we have had
Filegate, Travelgate, campaign contributions and now this very serious
matter. They make it look like it is our fault. It is not, and the
American people need to know the facts.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman who just spoke, does the name
Warren Harding mean anything to him? Does the name Grant mean anything
to him? Does the name Nixon mean anything to him? He made the blanket
statement that this is the most scandal-ridden administration in the
history of the Republic. I think the gentleman needs to consult some
history books.
Mr. Speaker, this vote on ordering the previous question is not
merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question
is a vote against the Republican majority 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.
[[Page H4746]]
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the amendment by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Condit).
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 3, strike ``resolution shall be considered as
adopted.'' And insert ``resolution, modified by the amendment
specified in section 2 of this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted.''
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 2. The modification described in the first section
of this resolution is as follows:
Page 17, line 3, after ``paid'' insert the following: ``,
first, out of amounts provided to the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight from the reserve fund for unanticipated
expenses of committees under clause 5(a) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives pursuant to an
allocation approved by the Committee on House Oversight on
March 25, 1998, which remain unobligated and unexpended as of
the date of the adoption of this resolution, and, second,
after exhaustion of such funds,''.
Page 17, after line 6, add the following new paragraph:
(3) Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight may not obligate any amounts
provided to such committee from the reserve fund for
unanticipated expenses of committees under clause 5(a) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives pursuant
to an allocation approved by the Committee on House Oversight
on March 25, 1998.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question on
H. Res. 476 and allow the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) to
offer his amendment to consolidate funding on these parallel
investigations.
Mr. Speaker, 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 a 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 took for those who oppose the Republican majority's
agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Sanibel, FL (Mr. Goss), a very valuable member of the
Committee on Rules. He is also the chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and probably one of the most informed Members
of this body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens
Falls, NY, the honorable chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
bringing forward what I think is a very worthwhile resolution. I urge
Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of moving the previous
question, I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and I urge a ``yes'' on the
underlying resolution. So it is yes, yes, yes, is what we have got in
front of us here.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are talking about fault. I have been
hearing from the other side of the aisle fault in the way we went about
our business; that we could have done it better if we had done this or
that. There has been a lot of fault-finding going on. I can assure the
minority that a very strong effort has been made to provide a workable,
efficient, bipartisan approach to the task at hand.
Is there a task at hand? You bet there is. There is a task at hand
because every day you can pick up the paper and read some new saga
unfolding in this area. And if the media is ahead of Congress doing its
job of oversight, we have got a problem. I am willing to say that the
media is ahead just on the basis of the Jeff Gerth story today in the
New York Times alone. So we have got to do something about this.
Now, we have heard some noise about the cost. This is going to cost
too much money because we have not limited it the right way or done it
exactly the right way. I remember the October Surprise. We went out, we
did the job, it cost about a million and a half, something like that.
Democrats were very eager to try and prove something. They were unable
to do it. We had a good October Surprise event, we closed it down when
there was nothing there, and it cost $1.3 million. I am not saying it
was money well spent because I never thought there was anything there,
but at least we satisfied ourselves. So I think we are very definitely
in the ballpark when we look back at October Surprise in how we are
approaching money.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the money is it is virtually impossible
to tell how much we are going to spend until we find out how much
cooperation we are going to get from the dozens and dozens of witnesses
who are not in the United States. That is going to require some expense
to get those people who are material to what we are finding out, trying
to find out about the truth. Of course, we are going to hope for more
forthright cooperation from the administration than we have had to
date, because in truth, factually, the administration has not been
fully forthcoming to date. So the cost could go up a bit if we fail to
have the cooperation of the witnesses and the administration.
We have been challenged about whether or not a select committee is
the way to go. We are actually cutting across the jurisdiction of eight
standing committees. I do not see any other choice except a select
committee. Some say the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
could do it. Yes, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could
do it if we enhanced our staff and we got into what is likely to be the
partisan question of campaign finance. Frankly, as chairman of the
committee, I do not want to take the nonpartisan Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence into an area that is so sharply partisan and
likely to cause partisan question.
With regard to the policy of President Reagan, let me point out, the
issue before us is not the policy of President Reagan. It is the change
from the policy of President Reagan and President Bush. What caused
President Clinton to change the procedure? We have a ``why'' to ask and
an answer to find. The minority report before us, as this is reported
today, talks about this is a resolution of routine occurrence and that
is a bad thing.
[[Page H4747]]
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing routine about the restarting of the
nuclear arms race that is going on, which I believe is a result, in
part, of the policies that have failed in China. That is certainly the
testimony of the Indian Government. We have clearly got exploiters in
North Korea who are taking advantage of this proliferation opportunity.
We read it in the New York Times. I have not had the chance to talk to
North Koreans about this. I would like to. They are exploiting us. So
we have something here that is hardly routine facing the United States
Congress and our responsibility to the citizens of this country in
exercising appropriate oversight about policy and other activities that
are happening that are indeed troublesome by admission on both sides of
the aisle.
I therefore think we are going in the right direction and doing the
right thing.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, my ranking
member.
Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman think once we set up the Select
Committee that we ought to let the Select Committee conduct this
investigation in the House and that the eight other committees that he
mentioned should let us have the field and do the job?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I s
rongly believe that
the scope of the resolution takes care of that problem. I am not going
to forgo my responsibilities as chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and I am sure the gentleman is not as the
ranking member to discharge the things that we have responsibility for.
I would hope for very close working cooperation between the Select
Committee and the other committees. And I would hope we could avoid any
possible redundancy that way.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think he has a good
answer.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' on the previous question
vote, a ``yes'' on the rule, and a ``yes'' on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record about
the previous question vote:
The Previous Question Vote: What It Means
The previous question is a motion made in order under House
Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House
used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect
of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution
to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at
the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of
legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A
Member might think about ordering the previous question in
terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote
on the bill or amendment before it?
In order to amend a rule (other than by using those
procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against
ordering the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the
Floor over to the Minority party.
If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then
recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control
an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment
may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor
then moves the previous question on the amendment and the
rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote
occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as
amended.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. FROST. 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 a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 197, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 244]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
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
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
[[Page H4748]]
NOT VOTING--11
Cooksey
Gonzalez
Green
Hastings (FL)
Martinez
McNulty
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Thune
Torres
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1345
Mr. EDWARDS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania and Mr. KASICH 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. Gillmor). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________