[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).

                          ____________________