Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 37 (Friday, March 27, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 37 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1682-H1684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Texas for the announcement of the schedule for next week.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce we have concluded legislative
business for the week. The House will next meet on Monday, March 30, at
12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business.
Members should note that we do not expect any recorded votes before 6
p.m. next Monday.
On Monday, we will consider the following bills under suspension of
the rules: House Resolution 398, a resolution urging the President to
provide three Blackhawk helicopters to the Colombian National Police to
eliminate the production of illicit drugs; H.R. 2186, a bill to provide
assistance to the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in
Casper, Wyoming; H.R. 3113, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
Reauthorization Act of 1998; H.R. 2574, a bill to consolidate certain
mineral interests in North Dakota; H.R. 2686, the Iran Missile
Protection Act of 1997; H.R. 3485, the Campaign Reform and Election
Integrity Act, the Illegal Foreign Contributions Act, the Paycheck
Protection Act, and the Campaign Reporting and Disclosure Act.
On Tuesday, March 31, the House will meet at 11 a.m. On Wednesday,
April 1, the House will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the following
legislation:
The 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 10, the
Financial Services Competition Act of 1997, and H.R. 2400, the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997.

{time} 1415

Mr. Speaker, we hope to conclude legislative business for the week by
the evening of Wednesday, April 1. As with the start of any district
work period, it is difficult to predict an exact getaway time, but I
imagine we should be done with our work by 6 or 8 o'clock on April 1.
Thursday, April 2, marks the beginning of the spring district work
period from which the House will return on Tuesday, April 21. We expect
recorded votes to be after 5 o'clock on that day.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to discuss the funeral arrangements
for our late colleague from New Mexico, Steve Schiff. A ceremony will
be held on Monday, March 30, at 10 o'clock a.m. in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. A funeral delegation is scheduled to leave the House steps at 6
o'clock a.m. and return to the House steps at 5:45 p.m. Members
desiring to attend the funeral services should contact the Sergeant at
Arms office.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
inquire of the leader, are we expected to have any late nights next
week, and how late would we go on Monday night?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for your inquiry. If the gentleman
will yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, we should expect that we could conclude our
business between 7 and 8 on Monday night, and Tuesday night we might be
prepared to go late in order to accommodate a completion of work on
Wednesday evening.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I can reclaim my time and ask of the
leader, is there a commitment to complete H.R. 10, the Financial
Services Act, before we go into recess?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. Yes, we intend to consider that on Tuesday of next week.
Completed.
Mr. FAZIO of California. In addition, if I could ask of the leader,
the Speaker has promised a vote on campaign finance reform by the end
of March. I note that we have what appear to be four individual bills;
I do not know the content of all of them. But is this the

[[Page H1683]]

fulfillment of that commitment? Are we finished with campaign finance
reform when we vote on the four bills that seem to be, at least in the
past, part of one campaign finance reform bill?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. Next Monday is March 31, and we do have the four bills
that we indicated will be up on suspension. That does include the large
bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas') committee
reported out, and then some selections within that bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Well, in order to get more information about
this, because obviously it is of great interest to the Members, we have
been waiting for this for a number of months. Let me yield to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is a leader in this effort on
the House Democratic side.
Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
And my question pursuant to the campaign finance reform: Are any of
those bills democratic bills?
Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry, and if the gentleman
from California will yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. They are all bills that have been worked on in the House
by a number of people from both sides of the aisle. They have all been
under consideration in the Committee on House Oversight, and we are of
course confident that Members from both sides of the aisle, especially
those Members who have so often expressed their hope and their desire
to have this vote by the end of March, will have an opportunity to make
the votes that they would find useful in advancing their concerns about
election reform.
Mr. FARR of California. So there are no Democratic authors. Is Mr.
Shays', the Meehan bill, one of the bills?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ARMEY. I am sorry, I just do not know the sponsors of the
separate bills.
Mr. FARR of California. And do I understand that on suspension it
requires a two-thirds vote in order to pass any of those bills?
Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman's understanding is correct.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Do I understand from the majority leader, then, that the
only discussion of campaign finance scheduled after these many months,
and committee comments from both sides of the aisle in favor of it,
will be under a procedure that permits no amendments and only 20
minutes to a side to debate each bill and that no bill that passes by a
simple majority will become law or be passed by this House?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the inquiry from
the gentleman from Texas.
Obviously, we have been receiving an enormous amount of requests, a
sense of urgency that would suggest that perhaps in order to respond to
those people who have been so vocal on this matter that haste was more
important to their concerns than the substance of the matter, and in
this case we believe that we have addressed the critical issues before
the electorate in this country, including, and especially, the issue of
protecting the paychecks of working men and women of this country, and
the opportunities to vote on them will be available, and certainly for
those of my colleagues who are so anxious to have this opportunity, I
look forward to watching them as they vote for this.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, if the gentleman will yield further?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DOGGETT. Haste was very important to us last September when the
gentleman told us this issue was going to be coming up, but I missed
the answer to my question. Is it correct that the only debate that will
be permitted next week on campaign finance will allow 20 minutes to a
side for debate, no amendments, and none of this legislation will pass
the House if it only secures a majority vote?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. To the gentleman from
Texas' inquiry, the answer is yes.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. It would appear, then, that the
last bill that leadership offered is not the only one that has been
killed by this House. Campaign finance is as dead as a door nail.

Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield at this time to one of
the cosponsors of the leading bill, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I
just would like to clarify a few points.
Our distinguished majority leader says that haste is more important
than substance, and I do not understand why he feels that way. Would he
please explain to me why he thinks haste is more important than
substance?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I
thank my colleague for his inquiry.
The leadership of this House is prepared to deal with this issue and
to deal with it in the most judicious way, through the efforts of the
committees of jurisdiction, and to do so in a manner that does in fact
give us an opportunity to comprehensively understand and measure all
the concerns of the American people and appropriately respond to them.
I might say, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I am
particularly proud of the work that has been done by the Committee on
House Oversight, and I believe that the first of the bills that we will
consider is very comprehensive, very responsive, very inclusive, and
should provide each and every Member of this body with a wonderful
opportunity to vote for campaign finance reform in the best interests
of honest elections for the American people and all of the American
people.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put this forward, and
for those Members who felt so insistent that it ought to be done by the
end of March, I would only suggest that obviously it is those Members
that place the emphasis on haste as opposed to substance. The committee
of jurisdiction was perfectly prepared to take that time which was
necessary to do this job thoroughly, completely, and correctly, and
given the strictures of time under which they operated, I think they
are to be commended for the thoroughness of their work.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further to my friend
from Connecticut, if he wishes.
Mr. SHAYS. With all due respect to the majority, I never stood in 11
years and questioned my majority leader, and I do not do this lightly,
but I am having a difficult time understanding what is being said and
what will happen, and I would like to have that clarified for me.
Are you saying that we are moving in haste and that these bills are
not substantive? Or that we are not moving in haste?
I would like a clarification.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his request, and I appreciate
him.
In order to be clear what it is, in fact, that we are saying here, we
are saying that on Monday, March 31, under the suspension calendar we
will take under consideration the Campaign Reform and Election
Integrity Act, a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that has
been reported by the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on House
Oversight. We will then, after that is considered, move on to
consideration of a bill that is written for the purpose of stopping
illegal foreign contributions in American elections, I am sure a matter
of great importance to all Americans, on a bill that should attract a
very high vote count in this body.
In addition to that, we will look at the opportunity that has been
made available to us to vote, through the Paycheck Protection Act, to
protect the paychecks of every working man and woman in this country
from mandatory use of their revenues, their incomes, by unions for
political purposes without their consent and permission. I believe that
too would be a very important vote, desirable by most of us.

[[Page H1684]]

And then finally, the Campaign Reporting and Disclosure Act will be
considered, an opportunity for all of us to see to it that all of
America knows promptly and thoroughly and completely who receives what
campaign contributions from which sources and how those campaign funds
are used as the day-by-day operations of the campaign go on.
I believe these represent opportunities for every American to have a
greater confidence in the honesty and integrity of our American
elections, and I am sure that all Members will look forward to the
opportunity to vote on them.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I would hope that he would inquire as
to whether or not we are going to have a vote on Shays-Meehan, because
I could not tell.
Mr. SHAYS. I intend to, but I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
gentleman for yielding. I am trying to understand that we began this
session last year, we waited all year long for a debate on campaign
finance reform, at the end of that year of our legislative session, we
asked the leadership if and when we would be having a debate on
campaign finance reform. Our leadership, my leadership, said we would
have a fair and open debate in February or March, and I am interested
to know if this meets the leadership's definition of a fair and open
debate on campaign finance reform.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the
time, and I appreciate so much the ongoing interest of the gentleman
from Connecticut.
As the gentleman knows, we have worked diligently on this whole issue
in committee and in leadership, and with a great deal of commitment and
conviction to the purposes at hand, that of securing honest elections,
with great integrity on behalf of the American people.
We believe that we are bringing to the floor next week, under
suspension, all opportunities of merit that could not be available to
the American people to provide them that assurance, and we are very
excited and proud for the opportunity for all of our Members to have
the opportunity to express their commitment to that by a yes vote.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further to the gentleman
from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Will you tell me who has decided that we brought all bills
of merit? Who has made that decision?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, again I appreciate the
gentleman from Connecticut. This has been a decision that has been made
through the entire leadership team in consultation with the committee
of jurisdiction, and I appreciate my colleague's interest.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Were any Democrats consulted on whether there would be
bills that they think deserve debate and discussion? Was anyone on the
other side of the aisle considered before the leadership made the
determination to come out with these bills?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding to my
good friend and colleague from Connecticut. I should, of course, feel
reassured, and as it should be, we have bipartisan activity in the
committee of jurisdiction, and we are very proud of the work that the
committee reported out.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further to the
gentleman.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Leader, I asked a sincere question, and I would
appreciate a sincere answer. And the question was: Was anyone in
leadership on the other side of the aisle consulted before it was
decided to bring out four Republican bills?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and again I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for his
interest, and the answer is no.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am happy to yield further.

{time} 1430

Mr. SHAYS. Then, Mr. Leader, how can that be a fair and open debate
if we have not allowed people with differing views to present their
bills and to make their arguments before this Chamber? How does that
meet the requirement of my leadership, who I like to believe is telling
the truth.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for response.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, I appreciate the
extraordinary generosity of time of the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, it is reminding me of a tennis
match. The ball is in your court.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), let me just say, we are perfectly prepared to continue any
further consideration of this subject as the year passes by. But
certainly we feel we have identified, through the efforts of the
committee on a bipartisan working basis, the key crucial issues that
are under concern before the American people. We are very excited about
the opportunity we have afforded the body to vote on these next Monday,
March 31.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the
opportunity to ask just one or two more questions. I would like to know
if our leadership has made a determination to bring up the McCain-
Feingold bill that was voted on in the Senate; and if so, when they
intend to bring that up for a vote.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate again the interest of the gentleman from Connecticut. And
these are the decisions that have been made with respect to what will
be brought to the floor next week.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, has the leadership made any determination on
whether or not they are going to bring McCain-Feingold to the floor of
the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Chair will remind the
gentleman from California that the customary extended 1 minute has
expired, and the Chair believes that Members have explored this at some
length.
Does the majority leader have any unanimous consents that he wishes
to continue with?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair made a ruling that I may not
continue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
has expired.
Does the majority leader have unanimous consents that he wishes to
continue with?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, point of clarification: If the Speaker is
asking if the majority leader would be willing to ask unanimous consent
to continue, the answer is no.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask unanimous consent to speak out of
order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, has objection been heard?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection was heard by the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).

____________________