Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today, Congressman David Price and I are introducing the Congressional Research Accessibility Act to make Congressional Research Service (CRS) products available to the public on the Internet. Senators McCain, Leahy, Lott, Abraham, Enzi and Robb are introducing similar legislation in the Senate. Under this bill, CRS will post Issue Briefs, Reports, and Authorization and Appropriation products to a centralized web site no earlier than 30 days and no later than 40 days after the information is made available to Members of Congress through the CRS web site. Through a link on their own web pages, Members of Congress and Committees may provide the public with access to the information stored on this centralized site. The 30-day delay will ensure that CRS has carried out its primary statutory duty of informing Congress before making the information available for public release. Also, it will allow CRS to verify that its products are accurate and ready for public release. The bill requires the Director of CRS to make the information available in a practical and reasonable manner that does not permit the submission of comments to CRS from the public. The Director of CRS is responsible for maintaining and updating the information made available on the centralized site and shall have sole discretion to edit that information for the purposes of removing references to employees of CRS, removing information which may cause copyright infringement and ensuring the information is accurate and current. Members of Congress will still be able to make confidential requests which will not be released to the public. Congress has worked to make itself more open and accessible to the public. The Congressional Research Accessibility Act will enable us to further engage the public in the legislative process and fulfill one of our missions as legislators to better educate our constituents.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, after Judge Starr's report to Congress in September and his presentation to the Judiciary Committee in November, I concluded that impeachable offenses were not proven and that the proven offenses were not impeachable. But the President's continued failure to come to grips with his actions; the sincerity and arguments of members of the Judiciary Committee from both sides of the aisle; the change of heart and conviction by Members on my side of the aisle who originally opposed impeachment and who now support it; and the strong and powerful opinion of so many of my constituents who oppose my position and wanted the President impeached, caused me to rethink my position. Like you, I listened to my constituents: those who supported impeachment and those who opposed it. I revisited the evidence, reexamined the documents, and even looked at documents I had not seen earlier. I spoke to people who were truly experts on these issues-- people who I have immense respect for. Yesterday morning, before I visited with the President, I concluded that my original position was the correct one--for me. I believe that the impeachable offenses have not been proven and that the proven offenses are not impeachable. But they are close. And that's why I understand why Members who happen to be primarily Democrats concluded that the President should not be impeached and Members on my side of the aisle--Republicans believe he should be impeached. With no exception, I truly believe that every Member of Congress is voting his or her conscience. In a few minutes, the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, will be impeached. But he will not be impeached with my vote. I cast my vote with no criticism of those who think differently and who will vote differently. We've all tried to do our best. And we will all have to live with our vote the rest of our lives. My prayers are for this country and its people, our President and his family, and for the House of Representatives and its Members, all of whom I dearly love. I pray the President of the United States will be able to do the right thing in the days and weeks and months to come. And I pray Republicans and Democrats in Congress will find common ground and do the work of the people of this great and prosperous land during the next two years.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, this is not about process, it is about substance. Sure, there are good things in this bill. This bill has 4,000 pages. There are bound to be good things in this bill. It weighs over 40 pounds. It is bound to have good things in here. But this bill represents everything I fought against as a fiscal conservative in this House, and I fought as a Republican who wanted to change this process and this place. Republicans got more money for defense. They did not look at closing bases, they did not look at ending needless weapons systems, they did not look at burdensharing. Democrats wanted more money for social programs. Instead of paying for it, we are taking it out of the surplus. Both won, so it is a big celebration. It is bipartisan. But that is what we have done since 1969. That is how we got in the mess we are in. We are right back into it. What bothers me is it is happening under my watch and our watch. There is $21 billion over the budget caps. We can call it emergency spending. It is over the budget caps. It is front-loaded. Now, are we going to cut it out next year and the year after? No, we are talking about $100 billion above the caps over 5 years. There is $3.5 billion in the year 2000 budget, in this budget that we are voting on. Then there is the D.C. pension fund, $2.4 billion, of revenue? What about the unfunded liability? We are putting it on budget, so we are counting this liability as revenue? We are doing it under our watch? Then there is $100 million for a Capitol visitor's center. I do not mind that, I think we need it. But we are putting it in as an emergency expenditure under the antiterrorism position? Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should not be voted out of this House.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of a valued employee, Joan Zimmerman. I feel fortunate to have had Joan on my staff since I was first elected to Congress back in 1987. But her time on the Hill did not start with me. She worked for my predecessor, the Honorable Stewart B. McKinney, as well as Stan Parris from Virginia and Robin Beard from Tennessee. Joan has worked for the United States Congress for a quarter century. She is a witness to many major changes in this institution and has seen many things: from Watergate to the Iran hostage crisis, to the end of the Cold War and seemingly never-ending budget deficits to an eventual surplus this year. Joan is not just a friend and colleague in our office but throughout the buildings of the Capitol. She talks to her loading dock buddies about possible dates of adjournment and counts many of the Capitol Police force as dear friends. When the tragic shooting of officers John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut at the Capitol occurred earlier this year, Joan offered her advice, guidance and sympathies to the many friends she has on the force who were deeply shaken by the death of these two American heroes. I know they appreciated her support as we appreciate her years of dedication. Joan, our office sage, after years of dedicated service is retiring this December and so many in our Capitol community will miss her. She always approached her job with a calm and consistent demeanor, steadfastly getting the work done in an often hectic environment. Her perspective and wisdom about this House has soothed the jagged nerves of a generation of young staffers. We will remember her for her sweetness of manner and her quiet determination, and a wonderful love and devotion to her two cats. We know our office will never be able to properly replace her.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 575, I announce the following suspensions to be considered tomorrow, Wednesday, October 14, 1998: H.R. 559, to add bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected for certain radiation exposed veterans; S. 1397, Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act; S. 1733, to require the Commissioner of Social Security and food stamp State agencies to take certain actions to ensure that food stamp coupons are not issued for deceased individuals; H.R. 3963, to establish terms and conditions under which the Secretary of the Interior shall convey leaseholds in certain properties around Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana; H.R. 4501, to require the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to improve the access for persons with disabilities to outdoor recreational opportunities made available to the public; H.R. 3878, to subject certain reserved mineral interests of the operation of the Mineral Leasing Act; H.R. 3972, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from charging State and local government agencies for certain uses of the sand, gravel, and shell resources of the outer continental shelf; H.R. 4519, to authorize the President to consent to third-party transfer of the ex-USS Bowman County to the USS LST Ship Memorial; S. 759, to provide for an annual report to Congress concerning diplomatic immunity; S. 610, Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and H.R. 4243, regarding government waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep concern about our country's failure to properly diagnose, effectively treat and fairly compensate veterans who are ill because of their service in the Gulf War. Today, the House considered and passed H.R. 4110, the Veternas Benefits Improvement Act. While I supported the bill, I am profoundly disappointed H.R. 4110 does not address the issue of presumption of service connected disability for our Gulf War Veterans. In March 1996 responding to requests by veterans, the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I chair, initiated a far-reaching oversight investigation into the status of efforts to understand the clusters of symptoms and debilitating maladies known collectively as ``Gulf War Syndrome.'' After 13 hearings, Representatives Towns, Snowbarger, Sanders and I introduced H.R. 4036, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Health Act of 1998 with strong bipartisan support and that of the Gulf War veterans' community and the veterans' community at large. H.R. 4036 would establish in law the presumption of service- connection for illnesses associated with exposure to toxins present in the war theater. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to accept the findings of an independent scientifc body as to the illnesses linked with actual and presumed toxic exposures. The bill would also require the VA to commission an independent scientific panel to conduct ongoing health surveillance among Gulf War veterans. The key provisions of H.R. 4036, not contained in H.R. 4110, is a ``presumption of exposure'' of sick veterans to one or more toxins known to be present during the war. This provision is critical because many of the sick Gulf War veterans, who now number more than 100,000, have a difficult time establishing service-connected disability due to missing or inadequate medical records. No other proposed House bill contains such a presumption. By establishing a rebuttable presumption of exposure, and the presumption of service-connection for exposure effects, the bill places the burden of proof where it belong--on the VA, not the sick veteran. The bill embodies a principal finding and legislative recommendation of an oversight report adopted without dissent by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee last November. We owe it to the brave men and women who have come forward to assist our ongoing VA oversight, and to all Gulf War veterans, to follow through with this proposal and properly diagnose, effectively treat and fairly compensate our Gulf War veterans. It is essential we address the problems faced by Gulf War veterans and pass a bill establishing a rebuttable presumption of exposure, and presumption of service-connection for exposure effects. We should place the burden of proof on the Veterans Affairs Department, not on the sick veterans.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we need to properly diagnose, properly compensate.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one part of this bill, and that is that we are not addressing Gulf War illnesses. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we could have more time to debate this bill. I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 minutes more on each side.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, when I make a unanimous consent, is that counted as part of my 30 seconds?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that I be told how much time I have remaining.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we are willing to give $315 million to chickens for the majority leader of the Senate, and we are not willing to provide help to our Gulf War veterans who need the presumption of illness.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for his helpful and enlightening comments, and to follow the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), because he really said exactly what I would like to say. In fact, he said in just a few minutes what would probably take me 10 minutes to say. So, Mr. Speaker, I will simply associate my comments to those of the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California. I also wish to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his outstanding efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong opponent of illegal immigration. I think we need to do a better job of cracking down on illegal immigration. At the same time, I think it is imperative that in certain areas we increase legal immigration, particularly in the areas where other jobs are related. I believe by bringing in people with high-tech skills, we help create more jobs in the United States for American workers.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say this is well-intended but it is also a gigantic loophole. In order to prevent the abuse of soft money, we have to ban it on the Federal level and the State level for Federal elections. We do not ban soft money for State elections. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) from the great state of ``Live free or die.''

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this substitute because the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) would allow candidates to raise unlimited sums from individuals. Right now the limit is $1,000; from PACs it is $5,000. He would have an unlimited amount. The national parties are limited to $20,000; he would have an unlimited amount. The State parties have $5,000. Under our bill they can do $10,000, but he has an unlimited amount. He has an unlimited amount to the aggregate that can be contributed in all campaigns. But in addition he does not even have full disclosure, particularly as it relates to third party proposals. When third parties come in, all they have to disclose is the name of their organization. It is a very clever thing. He calls it disclosure, but we do not know who that organization is. They can just have a sham name: The Committee for Better Government. We do not know who is part of that, we do not know who contributed, we do not know if there were five people, a hundred, a thousand. We do not know if a individual contributed $1 million, $2 million, $10 million, a dollar.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from California, because he does have a true reform bill. He has been at the forefront of this. I would also like to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, who brought forward legislation which I supported and which was vetoed by my own Republican President. That notwithstanding, we are talking about Queen of the Hill and which bill will get the most votes. I urge members to support the Shays-Meehan proposal, which bans soft money on both the Federal and State levels, just like the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and misstated, unfortunately, by my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona. The bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) bans soft money on both the Federal and State levels for Federal elections, as it has to, and unfortunately, as the freshman bill does not. Our bill also recognizes sham issue ads for what they truly are, campaign ads; improves FEC disclosure and enforcement; and establishes a commission to deal with those issues that have not been dealt with in our legislation. In regard to whether the Senate will act or not act, all I know is that 45 Democrats came to the forefront and supported the McCain- Feingold bill. This is what Mr. Daschle said. He said, ``The Republican leadership continues to employ a strategy designed to confuse the public and complicate the prospects for true reform. The one way to cut through all of that is for the House to pass Shays-Meehan, and send it to the Senate.'' Then he said, ``Passage of any other measure in the House, no matter how well-intended, would only have the effect of offering political cover for the opponents of reform to kill the bill in the Senate.'' Mr. Daschle is urging support of the McCain-Feingold, and says any other proposal is likely dead.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), my close partner in this effort.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to correct the gentleman. No sheet like the gentleman from Missouri showed would have been outlawed. The 60-day test relates to radio and TV and not a handout. Secondly, I just would suggest to the gentleman that cosponsoring a bill means we support the bill, but when we have a Queen of the Hill situation we can support two bills, and then we have to choose which is the better of two bills we sponsor or even cosponsor. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), my colleague, a gentle and very strong lady, and very courageous. (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to recognize the freshmen on both sides of the aisle but particularly to salute seven GOP freshmen, Republican freshmen, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has been recognized and deserves to be, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). I recognize them because we would not be here today if it was not for them. The Speaker of the House said that he was willing to bring this bill forward because admittedly of the petition drive and agree that it would be a bipartisan bill, and we only had that bipartisan freshman bill that he would have accepted. I am extraordinarily grateful to them. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), an early supporter of campaign finance reform. (Mrs. Roukema asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say that, first, I thank my colleague the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me the 10 minutes, and to acknowledge the fact that he has been an extraordinary leader on campaign finance reform and succeeded in drafting legislation that got to the President's desk, and excellent legislation as well. I also want to stand to congratulate both the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and all the freshmen for what they have done. The difficult thing is, we have worked well to bring this legislation forward. We tried not to, as reformers, to attack each other and to present a clear case. But today is the day in which we have to distinguish the differences. I would just say that I think in order to have a ban on soft money, we have to ban it not on just the Federal level but on the State level for Federal elections. And I think we cannot leave the current loophole of sham issue ads being allowed to continue when they are truly campaign ads. We need to make them campaign ads. They need to follow the campaign rules in order to eliminate that extraordinary loophole. We do have to continue to move forward with reform. So I thank my colleagues, and I look forward to this debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey proposal to provide $5.4 million for scholarships for D.C. students. Obviously, we are not talking about helping 100,000, we are not talking about helping 200,000, we are talking about a pilot program to determine the viability of a voucher program in our city, the city that is the capital city. I just would say to my colleagues that it has taken me a long time to evolve from opposing vouchers to supporting them. About 8 years ago I questioned them, about 6 years ago I began to think they made sense, about 4 years ago I thought that we should do it but I did not have the political courage to confront the teachers' union, and it was only 3 years ago I finally said we have simply got to do it. It is a pilot program. I strongly support it. I think it will make a big difference in the city.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2183, the bill just passed.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment, which prohibits funds from being spent to implement the President's Executive Order 13083 on federalism. I rise to support this amendment because I believe that this President's Executive Order should be repealed. This amendment also gives us the option to oppose the Hefley amendment, which repeals both Executive Order 13083 on federalism and the Executive Order on nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, 13087. Therefore, I support the Kolbe amendment and I oppose the Hefley amendment, because the Hefley amendment does more than the Kolbe amendment. It repeals the Executive Order on nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation. I do not believe we should discriminate. I do not believe we should discriminate based on someone's sexual preference. I think it is irrelevant, I think it is wrong, and I speak strongly in my outrage that some on my side of the aisle, my leaders in particular, have sought to make this a political issue.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that a Member can compare one amendment with another when one amendment seeks to deal with one executive order and another amendment seeks to deal with that executive order in another? And is it not true that we have the ability and right as Members of this floor to be able to compare one amendment versus another and why we support one amendment versus another?