Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Massachusetts yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my commitment may be useful, but it is not sufficient. Obviously, it is the leadership that has made the commitment. So when I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that we are going to get it done during this period, it is from the leadership of the majority party in the House of Representatives. I am a conveyer of that, and I feel comfortable that that will be honored. I understand the gentleman's concern, and this is not to reflect on where we have been, but we have already lost a full day that could have been devoted to campaign finance reform because we did not have an orderly process in place. For a while, we were working day by day. What we have here now is a clear plan to deal with one of the major substitutes that we have to deal with. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I thank him for making sure that as his mother watches the program she feels comfortable, because it was only out of ignorance that I did not know that I should not use the ``H'' in the gentleman from Massachusetts' name and, in fact, that it is silent. I would tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, I know he is anxious and concerned. This to me is a significant step forward in dealing with one of the major substitutes. What happens to this substitute fairly clearly will dictate what occurs with other bills, whether it passes or it does not, but to try to get a commitment now locked in time, because of the very appropriations bills that the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned are coming up, and obviously funding the Federal Government is of paramount importance, to try to lock the whole process in, in essence, returns us to square one where we have been. What I am trying to do is to create as much order in as large a segment as I can. Clearly, the flow of those appropriations bills to the floor probably will not be in a clear, automatic, understood pattern. We will do everything we can to create blocks of time, as close to Monday as we can, to accomplish the purposes of this unanimous consent, because the gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely correct, accomplishing this unanimous consent only gets us on the way to finalizing campaign reform debate in votes. It is an important segment, but it is not all the way there. If I could give the gentleman greater assurances than that, I would. What he has is my commitment, evidenced by this UC, to work closely with leadership and both sides of the aisle to accomplish what has been committed, and that is finalizing debate and voting on the measure before we leave for the August recess.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. THOMAS

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). 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. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to explain a proposition in an attempt to bring additional order to the process on the floor regarding the Shays-Meehan amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, this is to request in an attempt to propound either a unanimous consent request or a motion, if necessary, all of those individuals who have offered amendments to Shays-Meehan who are interested in pursuing those amendments to notify me, the Committee on House Oversight, that they have an interest in having their amendments considered in order on Shays-Meehan so that we will have the universe of those that are serious about their amendments by about 1 o'clock tomorrow so that we could perhaps begin to put together either a unanimous consent request or, as I said, a motion to create a defined universe of serious amendments to Shays-Meehan rather than the universe that is out there. So I would request by 1 o'clock tomorrow that any individual who has an amendment that is in order on Shays-Meehan who wishes to have it considered as part of a unanimous consent or a motion to notify the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, exactly. I will tell the gentleman that one of the things I have been trying to do is determine the accuracy of the list of proposed amendments; that is, the seriousness of them. What we are going to try to do is to get a notice out and leave a little time tomorrow morning for it to circulate, that anyone who is serious, let us know. It seems appropriate that if they are serious, it could be part of a propounded UC or a motion, and certainly as soon as we have that have list, we will provide our colleagues with it to get an understanding of where we are trying to go in an orderly fashion.

Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. My only question, Mr. Chairman, is can we in fact strike the last word under the amendment which was passed governing only those amendments under a time limit whose time limit is being drawn on if, in fact, the gentleman strikes the last word and there is no underlying amendment in front of us.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I asked to rise into the House so that I could propound a unanimous consent request. However, a point of order was reserved and a speech was then made and then objection was heard. Unfortunately, I was not able during that monologue to explain why I offered the unanimous consent, so I am doing so now. The majority leader has committed that the campaign finance debate will end prior to the August recess. That coincides with the gentleman from Massachusetts' specified dates of somewhere between August 3 and August 7. His complaint was that we do not have a complete agreement in which they have structured it and they have signed off on it. What I am trying to do as the manager of a bill, if I cannot meet the entire structural agreement, I thought that it would be appropriate to move us along, to at least begin to structure it day by day. What I offered was a structure for today. Contained within that unanimous consent was a desire to continue to debate this particular amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to the substitute by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 30 minutes. We have consumed far more than 30 minutes prior to my unanimous consent being propounded. I am quite sure we are going to consume far more than an additional 30 minutes. So I have some difficulty in understanding the argument from the other side in which they continue to make a point without listening. The majority leader has said, we will finish this debate prior to the August recess. It would seem to me that it would behoove all of us who want to have an orderly process, give a fair opportunity for as many people who wish to enter into the debate as possible, to structure it. What we got was an objection from the other side because we could not structure from today until August. What I was offering was a structure for today. But, clearly, that was objected to. So if we cannot do it day by day, we must propound something that is going to extend over a long period of time. It just baffles me that the debate that goes on is that we want to move through this in an orderly fashion, but then they object to an orderly fashion being offered for today. If the complaint is it is not everything, why would they object to today? If we can get order for today, maybe we can get order for tomorrow. If we can get order for tomorrow, maybe, working together, we can get order for the entire period. But they seem to want to make the argument that they want to move forward; and when we try to propose an opportunity to agree to move forward, they object. That was the reason I tried to offer it, to move us forward under an orderly time frame. I am just sorry that they are more interested in the point of debate rather than the substance of moving forward.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that it seems to me that the gentleman's request is within his own realm of concern reasonable. What we were able to do tonight was to create a degree of certainty for today, and my attempt is to begin to do it one day at a time. If the gentleman will recall, we attempted to place order on this process earlier. Our failure to do that or failure to get unanimous consent cost us a full day of legislative time in the debate of Shays- Meehan. I do not want in the pursuit of order to lose any more time than is necessary, and if the gentleman is holding out an absolute complete resolution in lieu of a day-by-day resolution, I will tell the gentleman he will probably create more of a delay than would otherwise be the case. Let me at least now work day by day, and we will move from there, and I will tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that I never did intend, nor will I ever intend, to define for him what ``antics'' are to him.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am not the original guarantor, but I will renew that guarantee from the original guarantor, the Majority Leader, that we will finish campaign reform debate prior to the August recess.

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. My belief is that it would be more than that because Shays-Meehan is not the completion.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Oh, yes. I will tell the gentleman that Shays-Meehan is only one of the substitutes under the rule.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I know that certainty is valued highly by this body, and in an attempt to provide a degree of certainty, I move that debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the following six amendments thereto, if offered by the following Members: First the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella); second, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker); third, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns); fourth, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); and, fifth, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), be limited such that no amendment may be debated for longer than 40 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would tell the gentleman that it was not a unanimous consent request, because the gentleman objected to a unanimous consent request.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we moved this measure. It seems to me, given the time, it would be appropriate, since it is only 40 minutes, that we debate and vote on the motion that the Chair was going to recognize, the Fossella amendment, and, if we moved to any others, we would roll the other votes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) propounding a unanimous consent request?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that to be a unanimous consent request.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was the gentleman from Massachusetts offered a unanimous consent request, is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) offered a unanimous consent request, the content being there be no more votes on any amendments tonight? Is that my understanding of the unanimous consent request?

Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was there was a motion presented to the House for 6 amendments, not more than 40 minutes. That amendment was adopted. On what basis does the Chair now propound a procedure for dealing with that which has not either been a unanimous consent or an offering on the floor?

Mr. THOMAS. In other words, the Chair is now exercising the Chair's right to explain to a Member what may be the parliamentary procedure and the order of business on the floor as determined by the Chair?