[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H391-H394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 352

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on 
     Wednesday, February 11, 1998, or on Thursday, February 12, 
     1998, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
     suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult 
     with the minority leader or his designee on the designation 
     of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from my State of New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order at any time on 
Wednesday, that is today, February 11th, and Thursday, February 12th, 
for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. 
The resolution further provides that the Speaker or his designee shall 
consult with the minority leader or his designee on any suspension 
considered under this rule.
  This rule is necessary in order to provide for the expeditious 
consideration of some noncontroversial legislation which is before the 
House this week. It would be impractical to bring this legislation up 
under separate resolutions from the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority attempted to work with the minority to 
reach a unanimous consent agreement to allow for suspensions, that 
means the expediting of noncontroversial measures today and tomorrow. 
However, the minority objected to that request, for whatever reason, 
and without the unanimous consent agreement, this rule is necessary to 
allow us to take up this legislation today and tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week many Members of both the majority and 
the minority participated in legislative planning sessions for this 
coming year. Members used this time to thoughtfully come up with 
solutions to many of the challenges our Nation faces this year.
  Republicans are intent on achieving a drug-free America, which is 
very, very important to me, make a safer and healthier environment for 
all of our children and our grandchildren. We plan on providing the 
best education system for America's students by providing parental 
choice in education, education savings accounts, and opportunity 
scholarships for students in the District of Columbia. But above all, 
we intend to make sure that this Federal Government does not dictate 
educational curriculum to States and local school districts.
  We will also take a careful look at America's retirement system by 
creating a national commission on retirement, thus providing greater 
security for the future of our retirement system.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republicans intend to modernize, we intend to 
privatize and to downsize government in

[[Page H392]]

order to reduce the total tax burden. For starters, this Congress will 
complete consideration of the Portman-Kerrey IRS bipartisan reform bill 
and send the legislation to the White House for the signature of the 
President.
  In addition, we will address the difficult tax burden Americans face, 
particularly by providing marriage tax relief and death tax relief. 
There will also continue to be a debate on what type of tax system is 
the most fair for the American people. We may even consider a proposal 
to sunset the entire Tax Code. And won't that be exciting, Mr. Speaker?
  The passage of this rule simply allows the House to move forward with 
a compelling agenda for this second session of the 105th Congress. I 
urge support for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from my home State 
of New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 352 would allow the House to consider bills on the 
suspension calendar on Wednesday and Thursday of this week instead of 
the normal Monday and Tuesday consideration. Because both the 
Democratic Caucus and the Republican Conference held their annual 
retreats on this week's normal suspension days, the resolution seems 
like a reasonable housekeeping rule.
  However, the resolution itself does not include the usual protection 
for Members that is often included in such resolutions; the requirement 
that Members be notified at least one hour in advance that a bill would 
be called up on the suspension calendar. While the majority has given 
us a list of three bills to be considered, we have no assurance that we 
will not be surprised by additional legislation.
  Two of the three bills on the calendar do not meet the usual criteria 
for suspension of the rules, which is noncontroversial bills with 
agreed-upon language, thereby obviating the need for floor amendments.
  H. Con. Res. 202 was introduced less than a month ago. The committee 
of jurisdiction held no hearings and had no markup. The Children's 
Defense Fund has sent a memo to each House office outlining factual 
errors in the resolution's original language. We are now told that 
there may be a manager's amendment which may or may not correct these 
errors, but as of midday today, Members have not been given the final 
language on which they will be asked to vote this evening.
  As important as the care of our children is to each of our families, 
why are we rushing to pass this sense of Congress resolution? Would not 
the usual process of hearings in a markup by the committee of 
jurisdiction help to ensure that we are not forced to vote on a 
resolution which may contain factual errors? Is the issue it attempts 
to address a new or time-sensitive issue? Is it so pressing that the 
committee could not have had the benefit of public testimony and 
perfecting amendments? I think not.
  H.R. 1428, another bill to be considered under suspension, is a more 
egregious example of shoddy legislative work. Referred to three 
committees, none have marked up this bill. Only one of the three held 
hearings. Again, as of midday, the final text of the bill on which we 
will ask the House to vote tomorrow was not available to Members, yet 
this bill could make unprecedented changes in our electoral system and 
overturn citizens' privacy act protections.
  This kind of far-reaching change should certainly be carefully 
scrutinized and subject to amendments both at the committee level and 
on the floor, yet we are told it will be brought up on the suspension 
calendar, which allows no amendments and only 40 minutes of debate. Why 
use this process on a bill that is so controversial? Why are we putting 
at risk a core right of our citizenship, the right to vote, without 
having a full and free debate?
  The lack of due deliberation on this bill is shameful and not worthy 
of this House. The scheduling of these controversial, flawed bills on 
the suspension calendar is damaging both to the comity of the House of 
Representatives and its legislative procedures. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
Members to carefully consider the important process issues that I have 
outlined before voting on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the inclusion in the 
rule of H.R. 1428 and to the process, or lack thereof, by which this 
bill was brought to the floor.
  This is a very sad day in the history of the House. Although on even 
relatively simple bills we have generally taken time to carefully 
deliberate on issues and ensure that ample committee and subcommittee 
review has taken place in order to prevent excessively flawed bills 
from taking up our limited floor time, unfortunately, the process by 
which this bill has been considered has been markedly different.
  There has only been one hearing in the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims and this bill is now on the floor. There have been no 
hearings on the Subcommittee on the Constitution to determine what 
effects this bill may have on Voting Rights Act protections. There have 
been no hearings before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social 
Security to determine if citizenship verification proposed in the bill 
is a practical idea.
  Because this bill has been not properly considered, we have no idea 
where the money will be found to create what some have estimated to be 
a multibillion-dollar bureaucracy.

                              {time}  1615

  Does this mean that we are so interested in solving a problem that 
may not even exist that we will have to make major cuts in Social 
Security programs for the elderly and disabled? None of these questions 
have been answered, and we are still proceeding head over heels into a 
land of uncertainty and frolic. This process has been extremely 
irresponsible with the tax dollars and Social Security benefits of the 
American people.
  Considering our negligent lack of process, it is very difficult to 
dignify the substance of this bill. However, I will do my best to add 
my voice to the colleagues of mine who will be speaking against the 
bill tomorrow.
  First of all, considering that turnout for elections is now at an 
all-time low in this country, I find it odd that we put so much fervor 
into creating new barriers to voting instead of strengthening motor 
voter and other voter encouragement initiatives which actually inspire 
people to take part in this great democracy.
  Furthermore, this country's not-so-distant past of discriminatory 
enforcement, of facially neutral election laws should give pause to any 
knee-jerk efforts to strike important parts of the Voting Rights Act, 
the only shield we have from our despicable heritage of poll taxes, 
literacy tests, and a host of over facially neutral schemes that are 
designed for one reason, and one reason only, to intimidate and prevent 
minorities from voting.
  Although we had anti-discrimination laws and the 15th Amendment in 
the Jim Crow south, it still took the 24th Amendment, which banned poll 
taxes, and the Voting Rights Act to finally arm citizens with an ample 
set of tools to fight against discrimination in the fundamental 
exercise of voting.
  Today we stand poised to eradicate a delicate and important part of 
our hard-fought voting rights protections for an unworkable system 
supposedly intended to fix a nonexistent problem. Both the Social 
Security Administration and the INS have said that the information 
necessary for this proposed verification system does not exist. 
Moreover, who would want to empower some new, big government 
bureaucracy with the almighty ability to say, who can vote and who 
cannot, based on records which do not exist or are inaccurate? We can 
do better than this.
  And therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should not include H.R. 1428 in this 
rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to perhaps respond a little bit.
  I was surprised to hear both my good friend the gentlewoman from 
Rochester, New York, (Ms. Slaughter) and my good friend the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) stating that this rule brings certain bills 
to the floor. That just is not the case. This bill does not bring any 
bill to the floor. This rule does not. It simply creates two suspension 
days.

[[Page H393]]

  Suspension days means that bills can be brought to the floor without 
necessarily having gone through a committee or through our Committee on 
Rules. It can be brought to the floor for debate, they cannot be 
amended and have an up-or-down vote. There can be a manager's 
amendment, but that is subject to a vote of this House. So every Member 
has to approve that.
  Secondly, I am just surprised to hear people complaining about a bill 
like day care fairness for stay-at-home parents. That is so terribly, 
terribly important today. As a matter of fact, I have 5 children and 6 
grandchildren, and my wife was good enough to voluntarily stay home 
with those 5 children all through their life until they went away to 
college; and that was the best thing that ever happened to those 
children. Because I was away more than half the time during the week 
all that time. And I think if we had more spouses that could stay at 
home and take care of children like that, I think we would have a 
better America and a better world today.
  This one bill simply states that day care fairness for stay-at-home 
parents will be brought to this floor. Even if these bills are voted on 
today, it is going to take a two-thirds vote. That is the difference 
when you go through the regular process, go through our Committee on 
Rules, and then bring it to the floor. Then a simple majority of 50 
percent plus 1 vote can pass a bill. But these bills cannot pass with 
50 percent plus 1; they require two-thirds. So it is fair.
  So I point out again that this rule does not waive any other rules 
whatsoever. All it does is create a suspension day, and then the bills 
that my colleagues were just referring to come to the floor under 
regular order. Nothing is changed.
  Now, having said that, let me just keep my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), waiting here for just a minute to talk 
about the question of utilizing this day. All of this week, both the 
Republican and Democratic parties have been in private caucus among 
themselves talking about their priorities for their legislative agenda.
  Next week we will be in recess, in work periods back in our 
districts, and that will take us through about two-thirds of the month 
of February. We will then return. And as my colleagues know, committees 
are meeting, but they have not had a chance to generate really 
important legislation on this floor yet.
  So I want to point out to the membership just how short this 
legislative period is between now and the October 1st scheduled 
deadline for adjournment for the end of this Congress, the 105th 
Congress. We will actually be considering legislation on this floor 
from March 1st until October 1st. How many weeks is that? Twenty-eight 
weeks.
  Now, 10 of those 28 weeks we are going to be back in the districts; 
we are going to be back for work periods just like the one coming up 
this week. We will be back for Easter. We will be back for Memorial 
Day. We will be back for the 4th of July. Ten of those 18 weeks we are 
going to be back home, where we should be, with our constituents. That 
leaves 18 weeks.
  How many days are there, floor days, in 18 weeks? Seventy-eight. So 
now we are down to only 78 days on this floor when we can pass 
important legislation. But my colleagues have to remember that Tuesdays 
are suspension days, like this one that we are considering today. So 
noncontroversial matters will be coming up on those Tuesdays. There are 
21 Tuesdays and other suspension days out of those 78. So subtracting 
21 from 78 leaves 57, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, that means that we are going to spend an awful lot of time back 
in our districts, where we should be finding out how our constituents 
feel about legislation, but we have only 57 days on this floor to pass 
a budget, to pass a supplemental, to pass a reconciliation bill, and to 
pass 13 appropriations bills.
  Now, we all know these appropriators can use 57 days all by 
themselves just to pass 13 bills. So then comes all the other 
legislation that my colleagues and I are interested in. Whether it 
deals with education, whether it deals with a drug-free America, 
whether it deals with the very important issue of Iraq or Bosnia or 
these other issues, we have got to squeeze all that into 57 days on 
this floor. That is why we are here today, asking to create these 2 
suspension days so that we can get by some of the noncontroversial 
issues.
  So I hope I have given my colleague a little education lesson here, 
my good friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter), just how important this 
is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) for yielding.
  I came down to the well today to express my concern about this rule. 
I am concerned because this rule makes in order H.R. 1428, a bill that 
I think is probably one of the worst examples of legislation that I 
think I have seen since I have been here. I say that not as a matter of 
overstatement, but really just stating a fact.
  The fact is, number one, the bill is unnecessary. We have current 
laws regarding voter eligibility. When a voter registers or when a 
prospective voter registers, he signs at the bottom that he is a U.S. 
citizen. That system of self-certification has worked for decades. We 
have a system to create criminal penalties if, in fact, someone is 
lying. It is called voter fraud. It is punishable today. We do not need 
a new law. This bill is unnecessary.
  But second and probably most important, what I think repels me the 
most is that this bill is vindictive. It is an attempt by the 
Republicans to intimidate and discourage Hispanic, Asian, and other 
minority voters. Under this bill, it is not enough that we sign and say 
that we are American citizens. Now this bill would allow local boards 
of elections to, quote, ``verify us.''
  How does this verification process work? Well, it works like this: 
The local board can decide who and whether they want to verify 
individuals. They do not have to verify everyone; that might make some 
sense. They can pick and choose who they want to verify. When do they 
verify us? That is not specified in the bill. Potentially, we could 
come up on election day seeking to vote and be told, ``Well, we have 
got to verify you first.''
  That is why it intimidates, that is why it discourages voters. And it 
is mainly being done because they tried to oust one of our own 
Democrats, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and they were 
unsuccessful in doing so. They tried to suggest that there was voter 
fraud and they were not able to prove it. So now they come back with 
this vindictive bill to say, ``Well, what we need to be able to do is 
verify people's eligibility.''
  Well, they say what we could do is, we could get the INS and 
Department of Social Security to verify people. Well, I have had 
experience with these agencies, and I can tell you that, though they do 
good work, they are ill-equipped.
  My experience with INS and Social Security is that they are both 
well-intentioned agencies, but that they are ill-equipped to perform 
this verification process. They already have a backload performing the 
duties associated with their legitimate tasks.
  INS certainly has more work than it can handle, seeking to find 
illegal aliens. We do not need them to be voter patrols, and that is 
what they would become.
  Under this system, Americans would be intimidated, just as African 
Americans were intimidated years ago by attempts to thwart their voting 
rights. We do not need a bill like this. It is totally unnecessary.
  People can certify themselves as Americans under the threat of 
criminal penalties. That is sufficient. It has worked in the past. I 
believe it will continue to work.
  The only reason the Republicans are addressing this bill and 
advancing this bill is because they want to try to get back at a group 
of people that they could not defeat at the polls, and I think that is 
shameful.
  So I hope today that we will, if we accept this rule, certainly when 
this bill comes up, H.R. 142, send it back where it belongs, and that 
is back to the back room of politics.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, one of the outstanding Members of this body 
is the chairman of our Education and Workforce Committee. He is the 
gentleman hailing from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bill Goodling).

[[Page H394]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I wanted to point out that, as a matter of fact, the resolution that 
I am bringing here today has been around for at least 2 weeks, and the 
fine-tuning of the statistics were in the hands of the Democrats as of 
6 o'clock last evening.
  But the fine-tuning from statistics really does not amount to 
anything anyway because the resolution simply says, if this Congress is 
going to discuss child care, they will discuss it in relationship to 
all children. It does not tell how they should do it. It just says, 
since 70 percent of preschool children are not in a formal day care 
setting, we should also think about the parents of those 70 percent.
  So even if we fine tuned the statistics, it does not matter because 
the resolution simply states that if the Congress is going to consider 
child care in this particular session, it should consider all children, 
it should consider all parents. The resolution is that simple.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 
has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, that is what I have always admired about 
the gentlewoman from New York. She gets the job done in a hurry, and I 
appreciate that. And, therefore, I am not going to let her outdo me. I 
am going to get the job done, too.
  So, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this resolution are postponed until 5 p.m.

                          ____________________