[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 102 (Friday, July 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   WAIVING PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946 
              REQUIRING ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS BY JULY 31

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 495

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House a concurrent 
     resolution waiving the requirement in section 132 of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Congress 
     adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each year. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may use. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 495 provides for consideration in the 
House of a concurrent resolution waiving the requirement of section 132 
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. The rule orders the 
previous question on the concurrent resolution without intervening 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may be wondering what we are doing here. 
An obscure section of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
established a joint rule of Congress. The joint rule requires that 
Congress adjourn sine die by July 31 of each year. It takes a 
concurrent resolution adopted by both Houses each year to authorize 
continuation of the session past July. The joint rule grants privileged 
consideration to the necessary concurrent resolution but only in odd-
numbered years.
  In even-numbered years the concurrent resolution is not privileged, 
so the normal course is to bring up the matter under unanimous consent. 
Yesterday there was an objection. That is why we need a rule today.
  The requirement to adjourn by July 31 may have made sense in 1946. 
Back then the fiscal year ended in June and perhaps it was realistic to 
expect to adjourn before August. But Congress has not adjourned sine 
die before August in almost 40 years--July 27, 1956, was the most 
recent time. In fact, we have not adjourned sine die before October in 
almost 35 years--most recently on September 27, 1961.
  Frankly, we ought to repeal section 132. That would eliminate what 
has become an unnecessary, irrelevant procedure each year. We could 
continue in session until we are ready to adjourn and then consider an 
adjournment resolution under the regular order; adjournment resolutions 
are privileged in the House.
  I have tried to delete section 132 for many years. In fact, the House 
passed legislation I introduced in the 101st Congress but it went 
nowhere in the Senate. In recent years I tried to accomplish this 
through an amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill but 
certain Members on the other side of the aisle objected. And I will 
continue to pursue the means to repeal this obsolete joint rule.
  Now what would happen if we don't pass the concurrent resolution 
authorizing us to stay in session? The only precedent I can find dates 
back to 1949. Speaker Rayburn, in August 1949, overruled points of 
order questioning the authority of the House to meet in the absence of 
a concurrent resolution. The state of war from World War II remained in 
effect and Speaker Rayburn noted that section 132 allows Congress to 
continue its session in the event of war.
  But legitimate questions might be raised about the validity of the 
actions of this Congress in session beyond July, in the absence of a 
concurrent resolution.
  I don't want to prolong the debate. It is necessary to pass this rule 
and pass the concurrent resolution and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for purposes of 
debate only.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule not because I think we 
can realistically adjourn the Congress on July 31 of this year as 
required by the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act.
  Instead, I oppose this rule to protest the fact that we have not had 
a comprehensive reform of this Congress since the enactment of that 
1946 act.
  Nothing more underscores the need for a bold overhaul of this 
Congress than antiquated provisions such as this which have not been 
revisited for nearly a half a century. In many respects we are still a 
mid-20th century Congress attempting to deal with the problems of the 
21st century.
  Is it any wonder the American people are losing respect for their 
Congress when they see us nearing the end of a Congress and still 
trying to devise major legislation on such pressing issues as health 
care, welfare, crime, and campaign reform?
  Mr. Speaker, the authors of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, 
had the best of intentions when they established the goal of adjourning 
each session of Congress no later than the end of July of each year.
  What they were trying to say was that we should do a better job of 
getting our work done earlier so that we could return to our districts 
and constituents for the balance of the year and get back in touch, 
with their real problems and needs. Only in that way could we return in 
January refreshed and better able to truly represent the best interests 
of our districts and Nation.
  There are those who would argue that the day of the citizen 
legislator are long gone, and that Congress must have full-time, 
professional politicians working in a full-time Congress. But, when I 
hear those arguments I am frankly revolted.
  To me that is running up the white flag on democracy and selling-out 
the people we represent. And don't think for a minute that our 
constituents haven't noticed this shift in the nature of their 
Congress. That is precisely why the people are so disgusted with us and 
are threatening to kick so many incumbents out of office this November.
  They are not impressed with full-time, professional politicians or 
full-time Congresses. They want Representatives who are truly a 
representative cross-section of the citizenry so that they will have a 
truly representative government.
  And to have that, they know that we must return to our districts more 
often and really listen to what is concerning them and how they think 
we can better represent them in making the laws they must live under.
  Mr. Speaker, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, of 
which I was privileged to be a member, was very sensitive to these 
concerns and very sensitive to the declining public support for this 
institution.
  The final report of the House members of the joint committee issued 
last December pointed out that the joint committee was created back in 
1992 because, and I quote, ``the issues facing Congress had changed 
greatly in the last 50 years while the internal structure had not.''
  And the report goes on,

       Members were increasingly frustrated with the process. And 
     the public's usual skeptical attitude toward Congress plunged 
     toward cynicism and major discontent as reflected in public 
     disapproval ratings which hit an all-time high of 77 percent 
     in the summer of 1992.

  That's when the joint committee was created--in the summer of 1992. 
And yet, here we are in the summer of 1994, with public disapproval 
ratings still running high. We've done nothing to reverse that 
dangerous attitude. The recommendations of the Joint Committee to 
reform this institution continue to languish in various committees of 
this House--some 6 months after they were introduced in bill form last 
February.
  Today, the Rules Committee is taking one piece out of that reform 
bill in a futile attempt to demonstrate movement. Yet all it 
demonstrates is the truth of my prediction that the leadership is 
embarked on a 3-D strategy to kill comprehensive reform--divide, 
dilute, and delay.
  How can we go back to our districts and face the voters when we have 
sat on our hands month, after month, after month and done nothing to 
modernize this institution and make it run better? Do you really think 
they will be bought-off with a few crumbs that won't do one thing to 
improve the operation of this Congress?
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect this House would come much closer to meeting 
the July 31 adjournment date we are waiving by the resolution if we 
made a few major changes we have recommended.
  I am talking about changes that would require that we organize each 
House and its committees earlier and report bills and pass major 
legislation by midyear instead of the year's end; changes to reduce the 
number of overlapping committees and subcommittees and staff and Member 
assignments; to outlaw ghost voting in committees and one-third and 
rolling quorums.
  In short, I am talking about changes to make this a more 
deliberative, responsive, accountable and representative institution. 
Nobody says that democracy can ever be made perfectly efficient. It is 
inherently inefficient.
  But we have made it even more inefficient by our huge congressional 
bureaucracy and internal turf fights that have tied things in knots 
around here.
  Some 12 House committees alone have been working on a single health 
care bill--over half the House committees. Is it any wonder we do not 
yet have a coherent and workable health care bill on the floor of this 
House?
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution 
as a protest against the abject failure of the House Democrat 
leadership to even permit a vote on a comprehensive congressional 
reform plan that will solve the problems that keep us here for months 
on end with little to show for it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a very valuable member of the Committee on 
Rules who has worked on congressional reform.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Rules from New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that we are being asked here to 
waive a requirement to adjourn sine die by the appointed date of July 
31. That is a relatively straightforward issue and clearly we are going 
to have to do that. But in the process of the remarks the gentleman 
from New York has made, it is very clear that it sounds like we need to 
make some changes, because times have changed and our workload has 
changed and we need to have a good opportunity and a good forum to 
deliberate that change. What made sense back in 1946 may or may not 
make sense today. But I think the gentleman from New York is right in 
saying that comprehensive reform has been blocked by the Democratic 
leadership. The efforts of the Joint Committee on Reform are not going 
forward in a bipartisan way, the way they were intended or the way we 
expected. The Democratic leadership has intervened and said, ``No, we 
are going to trifurcate it, bifurcate it, divide it up and chop it.'' 
And because of this we are never going to get anywhere. It is going to 
end up looking like chopped liver and it is not going to do the job 
when we get through.
  I think I am like most Americans when I say I am a little skeptical 
of the promises of Democratic leadership to say, ``Well, we're going to 
get the comprehensive reform.'' About 77 percent of Americans do not 
think that Democratic leadership is committed to comprehensive reform 
and this is one more example that they really are not.
  I want to talk about another type of reform, and another matter that 
has come upon us. It is sort of ironic that yesterday was the 79th 
anniversary of the invasion of Haiti. And to celebrate that fact, 
Haitians demonstrated in front of the American Embassy yesterday and, I 
understand, into the morning hours of today. So here we are talking 
about when we are going to adjourn this House at some point this 
summer. At the same time, the White House is again talking about 
invading Haiti--Seventy-nine years, four generations later--I think the 
U.S. would have learned by now. They do not like American invasions in 
Haiti and such a move will not accomplish anything right now. So here 
we are with the White House talking about another invasion of Haiti.
  It turns out, Mr. Speaker, that most Americans do not want to invade 
Haiti. It turns out actually that most Members of this House apparently 
do not want to invade Haiti, and I do not think I want to invade Haiti. 
I agree with those people. I think it is a very bad idea. But I 
certainly think it is a very, very poor idea that there would be any 
type of military action in Haiti taken out at a time when the Congress 
was not in session. I believe that it is the responsibility of Members 
of both bodies to be available for deliberation, consultation, advice, 
consent and a vote when we talk about using our men and women in 
uniform and putting them in harm's way. There has to be a justification 
for that and that is part of our say-so and that is what the people of 
this country have elected us to talk about.
  So I am going to urge that we do not adjourn without some type of 
provision for calling us back in session should there be some type of a 
military intervention by United States military in Haiti.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished chief deputy whip, and a 
member of the Congressional Task Force Reform Committee.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  We have a problem. The problem is that Congress is broke and we ought 
to fix it. Much of what is broke in the Congress is right here in this 
book, in the rule book. There is a lot of things that we ought to 
change simply because they no longer work. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts in his speech on this particular rule was absolutely 
right. It do not think anybody believes that Congress can get its work 
done by July 31 anymore. So this is something we would have to do. The 
problem is that we never get a chance to do it. Why? Because much of 
the rest of what is broke in Congress, the Democrats in Congress do not 
want to consider. They do not want to consider revising the committee 
structures. They do not want to consider getting rid of the rule that 
says that people can vote in committee without actually being there. 
They do not want to do any of these things. We put together a committee 
that a lot of us worked hard on, the Hamilton-Dreier committee. A lot 
of us worked hard to come up with a set of reform proposals. And guess 
what? It is bleeding to death in the Committee on Rules. We may get out 
one little piece of it sometime next week. But the rest of the proposal 
is dying because we are not getting the stuff done that we should get 
done. We are not fixing what is broke. It is high time that we 
understand that this particular item that we have before us is not 
isolated. This is one more example of the fact that we simply have to 
make this institution work better. We are not going to do that in my 
view, because I think when we get to September and October, we will 
find that we just do not have time to take up this very controversial 
idea of reforming the House. So we will end up having not done anything 
to reform the process once again. That is disturbing. It brings us to 
the ludicrous kind of thing that we have today where we have to come to 
the floor on the question of waiver.

  What did we want to do last night? They wanted to do this by 
unanimous consent last night so that they did not have to go through 
this kind of embarrassment and have this actually discussed on the 
House floor. We ought to be discussing this kind of thing because this 
is exactly what middle-class America has decided is wrong with this 
Government and with this Congress. Middle-class America has decided the 
Government is too big and spends too much and they know that one of the 
reasons why that is a problem is right here in the U.S. Congress and we 
will not clean up our act. It is high time we clean it up. If we are 
going to help the American people get back the dream that they think 
they have lost a while back, it is going to have to happen because we 
clean up our act here and we are not prepared to do that yet.
  This particular bill ought to be passed, we ought to be able to go 
ahead with our work. But for Pete's sake, if anything describes the 
fact that this place is broke and we ought to fix it, it is what we are 
doing here right now.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Chester, OH [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, said it all when he introduced the 
resolution that he brought to the floor that we are debating now.
  This is the 1946 Congressional Reorganization Act that we are trying 
to waive the rule that we should adjourn by July 31. But let us go back 
to the 1946 Congressional Reorganization Act. That is the last time 
there was serious reorganization of the way this body does its work. 
The committee system has not changed. The rules have not changed much.
  Can you imagine any business in America, any other organization in 
America that has the same operating structure they had in 1946? The 
same management structure they had in 1946? Operated under the same 
procedure since 1946? That is what we have in Congress today.
  Many of us have been pushing for real reform of this institution. 
Why? Because the American people keep saying, ``Congress, go this 
way.'' The American people look up and see Congress going this way and 
they cannot understand why.
  Part of it is because the leaders in this institution have tremendous 
control over what happens. They use and abuse the rules of this House 
every day to literally control the outcome of what this Congress 
produces. That is not what the American people want and it certainly is 
not what the Founders of our country wanted.
  In this effort to reform Congress, the Speaker decided he would move 
a reform bill last October and promised us we would have a reform week. 
it did not come. They said, well, we will do it in November of 1993. It 
came and went as well. And earlier this year after repeated attempts at 
trying to bring reform to the floor, we were told, well, by Easter we 
will do it. Well, Easter has come and gone and we are still waiting for 
reform of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for action is now. The system that we have in 
Congress is fatally flawed. It is not allowing the American people's 
will to come to this floor. So I say to my colleagues, I understand the 
need for the resolution today, but the question is, when are we going 
to have real reform of this institution?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], another member of the joint committee who served 
and made every meeting that we held over that whole year period.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Legislative Reorganization Act that we are now 
being asked to waive, that is the adjournment by July 31 in even years, 
brings to my mind how ludicrous the whole situation of congressional 
reform is here in the House of Representatives.
  A year and a half ago the committee I was pleased to be a member of, 
the only freshman member of, began a series of 6 months of meetings on 
congressional reforms. It is now brought to my mind that we have not 
done a complete reform of the House rules since 1946.
  I think the folks in my district, the Eighth District of Washington 
State, will not be surprised to hear that yet again reform has been put 
on the back burner, yet again we are told that we may have a chance to 
consider some of the reforms that we determined were absolutely 
necessary to this House during our hearings last year, that we were 
stonewalled from presenting by December 31, which had been the intent 
of the resolution that put our reorganization committee together. This 
legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 tells me that it has been a heck 
of a long time since we have taken an in-depth look at the rules of the 
House of Representatives. Still in the United States Congress there are 
no open meeting laws. My Congressional Sunshine Act is one that would 
be put before the House if we were able to consider in toto our reform 
package. It would require that all meetings and conferences that are 
held here in the House of Representatives be open to the press or to 
the people who pay for that system. Right now we can hold closed 
meetings by a simple majority vote of a committee, and the folks who 
pay for this process are kept out of meetings as serious as the Ways 
and Means Committee where they write tax policy that the people are 
forced to pay for.
  There is no delineation between debate on the floor or in committee 
meetings. We often have a conflict in whether we are on the floor or 
whether we are in committees.
  I would say that this is an issue that the Democrat and Republican 
freshmen agree on. We should set aside a time for deliberative debate 
on the floor of the House versus what goes on in our committee 
meetings. As it is, now we are racing back and forth on three or four 
critical things we must be doing at one time so that we have to choose 
the most important when we should be able to offer all our time and our 
services. It could be done through a computer scheduling system, not a 
difficult deal, but it shows the arcaneness of the rules around here.
  Lastly, there has been no reform of the committee system. We must do 
this. It takes far too long for important issues to the public to come 
before committees.
  Mr. Speaker, I have hope that eventually we will be able to consider 
our reform package, even if it is only after the beginning of next 
year's session when we expect to welcome 30 new Republican freshmen on 
to the floor of this House who will be finding a coalition for reform 
waiting for them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], who is a member of the 
Committee on Rules and who was cochairman of the Joint Committee to 
Reform this Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glen Falls for 
yielding the time, and appreciate not only his leadership on the Rules 
Committee, but also the time and effort he put into that 1-year 
committee, the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress that 
had 37 hearings, 243 witnesses, Members of Congress, former members, 
outside groups who came before us saying that the important thing for 
the U.S. Congress to do is to bring about the reforms which the 
American people believe are important, and what I continue to believe a 
majority of this House and our colleagues in the Senate would like to 
see happen.
  What we are doing now is debating whether or not we should move this 
date, a time in the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act. Frankly, it 
underscores the need to reform the place, because it has been virtually 
half a century since a bipartisan, bicameral, equal number of 
Republicans, equal number of Democrats committee has been put together 
to do this.
  My colleagues on the joint committee have talked about some of the 
changes that the American people want so that this institution can 
become more accountable to them and more deliberative, including things 
like eliminating proxy voting. Chairman Moakley is here, and he knows 
very well we do not have proxy voting up in the Committee on Rules, and 
I praise him for maintaining the fact that we do not have proxy voting 
there. But, unfortunately, other committees in the House have proxy 
voting, and we have case after case where it is really abused. I 
consider it an abuse when Members' votes are cast and they do not have 
any idea what those votes are. That happens on a regular basis in 
committees other than the Rules Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee and I guess the Ethics Committee and the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. But most all of the other committees in the House use proxy 
voting, and frankly, most all of the other committees abuse proxy 
voting.
  The American people have to show up for work. I think Members of 
Congress should show up for the votes that they cast. The argument 
given as to why they do not go is very simple, ``Gosh, I've three 
markups going on at the same time.''
  We will have an opportunity if we could bring about this reform of 
Congress package, a chance to deal with that. There are 266 committees 
and subcommittees in the House and Senate. It seems to me that might 
just be a couple too many for the 535 of us.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to bring about reform of the 
committees structure. I know it is difficult. I know we have to deal 
with personalities in doing that, and I know that it is an uphill 
battle. But if we are going to truly become more accountable and more 
deliberative, the way the Founders envisioned it, and the way the 
American people want us to be, it is essential that we proceed with 
that reform package under a generous rule which allows for us to 
consider these different ideas.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to what we are doing here 
because it underscores the fact that the change of the reform 
committees needs to be moved forward immediately. I hope very much, I 
would say to my distinguished chairman, Mr. Moakley, that we can move 
H.R. 3801 to the House before we adjourn for the August break. I know 
that different arrangements have been made indicating that we will have 
the package brought up sometime before we adjourn for the election.
  Unfortunately, as I listen to that strong commitment that has been 
made, I am reminded of commitments that I had that this would be done 
before the end of calendar year 1993, and when that date slipped I was 
promised it would take place early in the spring of 1994, then late in 
the spring of 1994, then early in the summer of 1994, and now we are 
approaching the end of the summer and we are being promised that this 
will be brought up in the fall before we adjourn for elections.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is a real mistake for us to be 
doing it this way. This is a wrong way for us to be doing this. We 
should be keeping H.R. 3801 intact. We should not be allowing this 
divide and conquer strategy to be utilized to perpetuate the status 
quo, which unfortunately is exactly what happened.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I thank my friend for yielding 
the time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Peoria, IL. [Mr. Michel], our distinguished Republican 
leader who is going to be retiring this year, and who is going to be 
sorely missed.
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist the opportunity to make some 
appropriate, what I think would be appropriate comments at this 
juncture. A number of years ago when I was a freshman Member, there 
used to be an elderly gentleman from Illinois, Noah Mason, who used to 
sit right in the aisle on that second row there, and that was his 
reserved seat. He was a former school teacher and served on the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  In those early days, whenever we got to July 31, he used to rise in 
his chair and say,

       Mr. Speaker, I want to serve notice on the House that this 
     is July 31st. Under the Reorganization Act of 1946 we ought 
     to be going home. So I just want to let you all know, I'm 
     leaving tonight and spending the rest of the year with my 
     constituents.

  That is the way it ought to be, 7 months here and 5 months back home 
with the folks.
  I will tell colleagues, Noah Mason would be a hero to the American 
people now, especially those Americans who might prefer to put off some 
of the legislative proposals that are currently before the House. 
According to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the House is 
supposed to adjourn sine die this Sunday.

                              {time}  1240

  Now, let me give you the direct quote: ``Section 132(a). Unless 
otherwise provided by the Congress, the two Houses shall adjourn sine 
die not later than July 31 of each year.''
  As we all know, Congress will not adjourn today, even though, 
according to the latest polls, most Americans wish we would go home, 
listen to their fears and concerns, and do a better job representing 
their interests.
  As it stands now, the Congress will continue to work in August, 
September, and October, passing laws, spending money, and enacting 
mandates.
  It is altogether fitting that today the majority waive one of the 
reform provisions of the Legislative Reform Reorganization Act of 1946, 
as the Democratic leadership ponders how to sink the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress' reform recommendations.
  The Democratic majority cannot abide by old reforms, so it is no 
wonder they would rather not enact some new ones.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is Friday, and I know Members are trying to get home and do what 
we have been talking about, talk to the people back home so that they 
will have an understanding of what they should be doing here. So I will 
not delay the House. I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. I will 
shout ``no'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 495, I call up 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 275) waiving the requirement of 
section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that the 
Congress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each year, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clerk will report the concurrent 
resolution.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 275

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     132(a)(1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 198), the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     shall not adjourn for a period in excess of three days, or 
     adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have adopted 
     a concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment 
     (in excess of three days) to a day certain or for adjournment 
     sine die.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered on the concurrent resolution.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________