[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5458-H5459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  REQUEST TO LIMIT FURTHER DEBATE AND AMENDMENTS ON THIS DAY TO SHAYS 
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF 
          H.R. 2183, BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further 
consideration of H.R. 2183 on this day, pursuant to H. Res. 442 and H. 
Res. 485, the pending amendment which we have been discussing by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) be 
debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent. No other amendment to the amendment by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) shall be in order on this day, 
except the amendments that have been placed at the desk, which are as 
follows:
  The amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker); the 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella); the amendment 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns); the amendment by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); and the amendment by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

                              {time}  1830

  On this day, each amendment may be considered only in the order 
listed and may be offered only by the Member designated, or his 
designee, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). Is there objection to 
dispensing with the reading of the amendments only?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have been 
talking, at least before we left for the 2-week break, we were talking 
about a unanimous consent agreement on campaign finance reform. We had 
talked about a comprehensive agreement, an agreement that would result 
in us being able to complete campaign finance reform by the August 
recess on August 7; and, to that end, many of us met today and we had 
talked about agreeing to a unanimous consent agreement and making part 
of the unanimous consent agreement the fact that we would take up in 
August, the week of August 3 through 7, all of the substitutes that had 
been made in order, have an hour of debate for each of those, and then 
vote up or down on those substitutes.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, if we look at how long it has taken us to get 
to this point in time and if we consider the fact that, under the rule, 
we could literally have 250 to 260 amendments, that it makes sense for 
us to try to come to an agreement on a comprehensive unanimous consent 
agreement that would result in not only discussing those amendments 
that we need to discuss but also a definite, definitive time and date, 
that is August 3 through 7, where we would vote on each of the 
substitutes.
  So that is the unanimous consent agreement that I was hoping that we 
could get.

[[Page H5459]]

  I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) had proposed 
limiting to 34 different amendments before we left. Now that we have a 
unanimous consent agreement for just one evening, I would point out 
that they are all Republican amendments, and two of the amendments, the 
Stearns and the Fossella amendment, are nearly identical or are at 
least pretty similar.
  So it does not seem to make any sense to agree to a unanimous consent 
agreement for one day when, in fact, what we need here is some kind of 
a commitment and some kind of an agreement in writing that we can have 
a vote on the substitutes that have been offered here and have that 
vote before the August recess. I do not think I have to tell my 
colleagues how long this process has been ongoing over a period of the 
last several years.
  Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Regular order would be the reading of the 
amendments.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts object to the reading of the 
amendments?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the reading of the amendments. I 
object to the original request.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I objected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts object 
to the original unanimous consent request also?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________