[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9-H23]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 MAKING IN ORDER IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION ADOPTING 
    THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
immediately to consider in the House a resolution adopting the rules of 
the House of Representatives for the 104th Congress; that the 
resolution be considered as read; that the resolution be debatable 
initially for 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
majority leader and the minority leader, or their designees; that the 
previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution to final 
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
question, except that the question of adopting the resolution shall be 
divided among nine parts, to wit: Each of the eight sections of title 
I, and then title II; each portion of the divided question shall be 
debatable separately for 20 minutes, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader, or their 
designees, and shall be disposed of in the order stated, but if the 
yeas and nays are ordered on the question of adopting any portion of 
the divided question, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on 
that question until a later time during the consideration of the 
resolution; and, pending the question of adopting the ninth portion of 
the divided question, it shall be in order to move the previous 
question thereon, and if the previous question is ordered, to move that 
the House commit the resolution to a select committee, with or without 
instructions, and that the previous question be considered as ordered 
on the motion to commit to final adoption without intervening motion.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. BONIOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, under my 
reservation I would like to ask the gentleman 
[[Page H10]] from Texas [Mr. Armey] several questions about his 
unanimous-consent request.
  First of all, does the gentleman's request allow us to offer an 
amendment to ban gifts by lobbyists?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, You are entitled 
under the rules to offer a germane amendment in your motion to commit 
if it is ruled by the Parliamentarian that such an amendment is 
germane.
  Mr. BONIOR. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would propound to my distinguished friend from Texas another question:
  Is your request an open amendment process which allows Members the 
opportunity to offer germane amendments? We have the opportunity to 
offer germane amendments?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, I am advised by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, that the rule is more open than any we have ever had in the 
past.
  Mr. BONIOR. Is the gentleman saying that no amendments are in order 
under the request and this is a closed rule?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, there are plenty of 
amendments in order.
  Mr. BONIOR. Does this afford the minority a right to offer an 
amendment, I would ask the gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am again 
advised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, that my colleague can include any amendment he 
wants in the motion to commit so long as it meets the test of 
germaneness.
  Mr. BONIOR. Will we have time to debate the motion to commit?
  Mr. ARMEY. I believe under the rules of the House it is a 
nondebatable motion.
  Mr. BONIOR. So we can offer the motion and we cannot debate it?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, there will be about 3\1/2\ 
hours of debate, and it is the judgment of this Member that there will 
be plenty of opportunity within that time since time will be allocated 
to the minority for debate purposes to make the points that the 
gentleman might want to make related to their motion to commit.

                              {time}  1430

  It is a common practice that we used many times when we were in the 
minority exercising our prerogative to make a motion to commit.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding we will not be able 
to offer amendments on the motion the gentleman has put forward, and 
that we will not be able, for instance, to offer the amendment that we 
wish to offer on the gift ban.
  In fact, I would ask another question of my friend. Does this request 
envision a division of the open-amendment process for the Congressional 
Accountability Act to be considered at the end of the day?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Perhaps at this point I might address the Speaker and 
express my wonderment as to whether or not the gentleman is going to 
make an objection.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, let me just 
say that given that the gentleman has informed the House that he is 
requesting two completely closed rules, two gag rules, I might add, on 
the first day of the Congress, I object.
  The SPEAKER. An objection has been heard.
  The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican 
Conference, since there is no Committee on Rules yet, and the Committee 
on Rules has not met yet to organize and will not until tomorrow, by 
direction of the Republican Conference, I call up a privileged 
resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                               H. Res. 5

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     for the One Hundred Fourth Congress. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read. The resolution shall be debatable 
     initially for 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled 
     by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     designees. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the resolution to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except as specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
       Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be 
     divided among nine parts, to wit: each of the eight sections 
     of title I; and title II. Each portion of the divided 
     question shall be debatable separately for 20 minutes, to be 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their designees, and shall be disposed of 
     in the order stated.
       Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the ninth portion 
     of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that 
     the House commit the resolution to a select committee, with 
     or without instructions. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to commit to final 
     adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER. The resolution is a matter of privilege. The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the distinguished minority leader, or in this case the 
minority whip, or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a special rule 
authorized by the Republican Conference providing for the consideration 
of a resolution adopting the rules of the House for the 104th Congress.
  While such a special rule is not unprecedented, I think the last time 
it was done was back in 1893. So this is an unusual situation. We have 
never before had an objection to the rules being brought up by 
unanimous consent.
  As returning Members are aware, ordinarily the resolution adopting 
House rules at the beginning of a Congress is considered as privileged 
in the House and subject to just 1 hour of debate, with no amendments, 
and on up-or-down vote following the vote on the previous question and 
any motion to commit the resolution.
  This special rule allows for a different and more expansive 
consideration of the House rules resolution.
  First, instead of just 1 hour of debate, which is customary in this 
House and traditional over the years, certainly all of the years I have 
been here, it provides for a total of 3\1/2\ hours of debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the majority and the minority party.
  Second, instead of just one vote on adopting the resolution, the 
special rule allows for nine separate votes, not counting a vote on 
committing the resolution. I would again call this to the attention of 
the Members on that side of the aisle. It allows for nine separate 
votes, not counting a vote on committing the resolution, which I assume 
the minority would be offering.
  This time will be divided as follows:
  First, there will be 30 minutes of general debate on the resolution, 
equally divided between the majority and the minority.
  Second, there will follow 20 minutes of debate each on the eight 
sections contained in title I of the resolution, and that is the 
Contract with America: The Bill of Accountability Act.
  Mr. Speaker, each of these sections will be subject to a separate 
vote under an automatic division of the question.
  Third, there will be additional 20 minutes of debate on title II of 
the resolution, containing an additional 23 sections, followed by a 
separate vote on title II. That is nine votes altogether.
  It would be in order for the minority, prior to the final vote on 
adopting title II of this bill, to offer a motion to commit the 
resolution.
  However, I want to point out that this special rule does not allow 
for a separate previous question vote on title II. So if the minority 
wishes to have a previous question vote to alter 
[[Page H11]] the terms of this procedure and make in order additional 
amendments, it must defeat the previous question on this special rule. 
They have that prerogative.
  We are allowing the minority its traditional previous question vote 
through this rule, but we are not being so generous as to allow the 
minority two previous question votes. We are going to be here until 
10:30, 11:30, possibly even 2 o'clock in the morning, and we want to 
expedite this as quickly as possible.
  I would also point out in that same regard that the previous question 
is automatically ordered on the adoption of each of the eight sections 
in title I.
  That means that there will be no separate previous question votes on 
those sections, nor will there be an opportunity to commit any of those 
sections, with or without instructions.
  That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the minority will be precluded 
in its final motion to commit on title II from revisiting any matter 
that has been adopted in title I. They can still take that opportunity, 
if they wish. On the contrary, all of the rules of the House that have 
been adopted to that point are still subject to further amendment in 
any motion to commit, and any additional amendments to House rules will 
be in order as well.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have designed in this procedure the 
fairest and most open process on a House rules resolution in over a 
century in this House. We have allowed over three times as much debate 
as is usual on opening day, and nine times as many votes.
  We will be giving Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity 
to separately vote on each of the nine items contained in our Contract 
with America as embodied in title I. And the minority will retain its 
usual right to alter this procedure further if it defeats the previous 
question on this rule, and it will retain its usual right to commit the 
resolution with a final amendment at the conclusion of debate on title 
II.
  I therefore, Mr. Speaker, urge adoption of this special rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, perhaps for a colloquy 
with the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last November, the American people voted for change.
  They sent a message to this House, a message of anger and 
frustration.
  We, in our party, have heard that message, the message of working 
families whose incomes are squeezed, working families who are tired of 
business as usual, who feel that no one speaks for them.
  In the days and weeks and months ahead, we, in the Democratic Party 
intend to be their voice.
  When tax cuts are proposed, we intend to make sure that it is working 
families who benefit, not the wealthiest few.
  In our efforts to balance the budget, we intend to make sure that our 
seniors are not robbed of their right to Social Security or Medicare, 
that our children are not deprived of their right to education and 
practical training for good jobs.
  And we intend to make sure that when we talk about reforming this 
House, those reforms are real, concrete, and that they make a 
difference. We have seen the symbols of change today. In what is the 
greatest tribute to, this, the world's greatest democratic institution, 
the gavel has changed hands. Power has shifted.
  The Republican Party has promised an agenda of reform. We, Democrats 
intend to make sure they keep their promises. Today, we deal with the 
rules of this House. These issues may seem arcane, removed from the 
lives of average Americans. But what we do today sends a powerful 
signal. For today, we define the rules and standards that we, as 
Members of Congress, are determined to live by.
  Most Democrats will support most of the reforms that are being 
offered. Some of them were our own reforms, reforms that were blocked 
last year, in a cynical move for partisan advantage by the Republican 
Party. Some of them are of little consequence. Whether they pass or not 
makes little difference. But, none of these reforms go far enough. They 
stop short. They are just window dressing, hiding the real shift in 
power the Republicans intend to bring about.
  The American people voted for change last November. They did not vote 
to create a Congress that is for sale to the highest bidder. They voted 
for change. But they did not vote for a Congress where leaders take 
care of their own private profits before they take care of the public 
business.
  They voted for change. But they did not vote for a Congress that is 
beholden to multimillionaires. And they did not vote to allow Members 
of Congress to trade on the public trust, and become millionaires 
themselves. They did not vote for a Congress that is entangled with 
special interests or tied to the powerful concerns of foreign 
corporations.
  The American people did not vote to open the doors of Congress to the 
Power Rangers or the powers that be, but to the power of the average 
American. With this paltry package of reforms, the Republican Party has 
shown that they just don't get the message.
  We are about to witness the biggest takeover by special interests in 
the history of the U.S. Congress, and this so-called reform package 
does nothing to stop it. This rules package is nothing more than a 
string of broken promises.
  After the years of whining and complaining on the Republican side 
about the damages to democracy of closed rules, what is the first thing 
they offer us? A closed rule. Not just one closed rule, but a closed 
rule within a closed rule.
  Where is democracy, where is open debate, where is the free flow of 
ideas? Not one amendment will be able to be offered to anything the 
Republicans do today. Not one amendment.
  This would not matter so much, if the Republicans had offered us real 
reform. But their package leaves out the single most important effort 
that could help stop the influence of special interests, a ban on gifts 
from lobbyists.
  Last year, the Republicans ran from reform, and blocked passage of 
the gift ban bill in the Senate. This year, they are going even 
further. With this closed rule, with this gag rule, they have prevented 
a gift ban from being offered as a separate amendment.
  We need to defeat the previous question on this gag rule, to provide 
an open rule that will allow us to get to the real issues of reform, 
including a ban on gifts from special interests.
  This is essentially the same gift ban provision that was passed 
overwhelmingly last year, Republicans claimed to be for it then, now 
that they are in control, it is time to get real about reform, and pass 
this ban on gifts.
  In recent weeks, it has become clear that there is a serious loophole 
in even this major reform. We have discovered that there are backdoors 
to getting gifts. And one of these back doors is through book deals, 
with lucrative advances and multimillion dollar royalty contracts.
  I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that we can offer an open rule which will allow an amendment to 
directly address this issue of whether a Member of Congress should be 
allowed to earn millions of dollars in book royalties while employed at 
the taxpayers expense.
  We intend to try to offer an amendment that would cap royalties from 
any individual book to one-third of a Member's annual salary.
  Let me make this very clear: by making this proposal today, we are 
not trying to discourage Members from writing books. Public officials 
all the way back to ancient Greece have written books, including many 
esteemed Members of this body.
  But at the same time, no Member should be able to use the prestige of 
this office to cut a special deal.
  No Member of Congress should be allowed to use this office--this 
public trust--for personal gain. No Member of Congress should make a 
book deal in one day that equals far more than the average American 
family earns in their entire lifetime.
  A one-third cap on royalties is reasonable. It is more than generous. 
The public expects us to do no less.
  We were not elected to this body to get rich; we're here to do the 
people's business and that is a full time job.
  It is important today that we send the word out across America that 
we are serious about reform, that this 
[[Page H12]] Congress is not for sale, our offices are not open to the 
highest bidder.
  A vote for the previous question and for this gag rule is a vote to 
shut out real reform. It is a vote to fling open the doors to special 
interests. It is a vote to continue the old order.
  I urge my colleagues, especially those of you for whom this is your 
very first vote, those of you who ran on the promise of reform, do not 
side with the special interest. Let us open the door to real reform. 
Vote no on the previous question and let's come back with a rule that 
will allow us to ban gifts from lobbyists and to limit the royalties of 
Members of Congress.
  This House of Representatives is not for sale. Say no to gifts. Say 
no to excessive book deals. Support an open rule.
                              {time}  1440

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I might 
consume just briefly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], and he is a good friend and I 
have deep respect for him, but I believe, David, that you were a member 
of the task force on the ethics bipartisan task force that allowed 
Members to take book royalties from legitimate book firms back, what 
year was that, back in 1981 or 1982, I believe. 1989, it was even more 
recent.
  But let me just address this rule business, because when Speaker 
Gingrich called me before him when we were going to talk about the 
formation of the new Committee on Rules, he instructed me, along with 
the other eight Republicans that will make up that committee to be as 
open and fair and accountable as we possibly can. As the gentleman 
knows, in recent years under the past two Speakers, we have gone to 
almost a totally structured rule process, where Members on both sides 
of the aisle have literally been gagged. The House was not allowed to 
work its will.
  The gentleman knows that conservative Democrats on your side of the 
aisle complained bitterly about it, people like the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Tim Penny, and the gentleman from Louisiana, Bill Tauzin, 
and others, because they were not allowed to offer amendments on this 
floor.
  Speaker Gingrich has asked me to be as open and fair as we possible 
can, and to reverse the fact that 70 percent of all of the rules that 
came to this floor last year were closed or structured or restricted 
rules. He has asked us to try to make an open rule process the norm, 
and not the exception. We are going to do that. I am going to follow 
his instructions. Now, at this point, let me yield to a Member who 
served on the Speaker's task force to reform this House. I had the 
privilege of serving with him. We developed these kinds of reforms that 
we are offering here today, 8 of them in the contract for America, 23 
in title II, all of which are additional reforms to the existing 1993 
Democrat rules package that is here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a very 
distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
                              {time}  1450

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, the 
soon to be chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me just say that as I have listened to the words from my very 
dear friend, the gentleman from Mount Clemens, MI [Mr. Bonior], who has 
described this as a closed rule, I have to say that it is absolutely 
preposterous to claim that what is clearly the most open rule on an 
opening day in recent congressional history is closed. Now, in the past 
we have regularly seen basically a single up-or-down vote, but as 
Speaker Gingrich said in his remarks earlier, we are going to be today 
casting votes on eight different provisions, providing Members with the 
opportunity to look at virtually every aspect of the preamble of our 
contract with America.
  As I listen to the arguments about a closed rule here, I cannot help 
but think about the fact that nearly every single week during the 
second session of the 103d Congress I stood right there at that desk 
and asked the majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt], or his representative, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], or the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], or another Member 
when we could expect the congressional reform package to get to the 
House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the response was regularly ``Well, we are hoping that we 
will be able to get it up first in early spring of 1994.'' Then it was 
late spring, then early summer, then midsummer then before we adjourned 
for August, and then after August it was before we adjourned. As we all 
know very well, at the end of the 103d Congress, we got a little speck 
and nothing more than that when we passed this rule calling for 
congressional compliance.
  It seems to me that as we look at this issue, this issue is a very 
important one which we have struggled to get our friends who were 
formerly in the majority to bring to the House floor, and because of 
their recalcitrance on the issue of congressional reform over the past 
2 years, we are on the opening day bringing these reforms as 
expeditiously as we possibly can. Why? Because we have debated these 
throughout virtually every campaign. On every measure that dealt with 
the issue of congressional reform, I attempted to defeat the previous 
question, to make in order our congressional reform package, which 
again had been promised for consideration by the leadership in the 
past.
  I believe very strongly that this rule is going to allow us to have 
free, fair, and open debate on this extraordinarily important issue, on 
this extraordinarily important day. I say we have got to get the job of 
congressional reform completed and completed today, so that we can do 
what the American people are anticipating from us in the next 100 days.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
California, [Mr. Dreier], he also stood at that desk over there every 
single day and he condemned closed rules as being a violation of the 
democratic process, and he promised that if he were in charge we would 
never again see closed rules.
  And where are we today? The first day of the first session of 
Congress, when you are finally in charge, and the very first rule you 
bring to the House is a closed rule. Now I would just have to say to 
the gentlemen from California and New York, Mr. Dreier and Mr. Solomon, 
it is a curious thing to see on the first day of the House these two 
gentlemen, who took up so much of our time talking about closed rules, 
to be the authors of a closed rule on the first day of this Congress.
  It is indeed also curious that, after so much talk about reform, that 
they would bring to the House floor today a set of rules that excludes 
any reference to reform of the process we have today under which 
lobbyists are permitted to buy gifts, meals, and thinly disguised 
vacation trips for Members of Congress.
  I must say it is especially curious inasmuch as in October the 
Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, was on ``Meet the Press'' saying, 
and I quote, ``I am prepared to pass a bill that bans lobbyists from 
dealing with Members of Congress in terms of gifts.''
  Yet here we are on the first day, the first opportunity to do it, and 
not only is it not a part of the Republican package, we are prohibited 
from even offering an amendment to the Republican package to prohibit 
lobbyists from buying gifts, free meals, and thinly disguised vacations 
for Members of Congress.
  They will not allow us to offer that amendment for a very simple 
reason, because they know that it would pass overwhelmingly.
  The Speaker and his leadership allies fought tooth and nail last year 
to kill the ban on gifts from lobbyists. They tried to keep the bill 
from being considered in the House, and when that failed, they 
encouraged a Senate filibuster which succeeded in killing it, 
[[Page H13]] even though twice it passed the House of Representatives 
overwhelmingly and with a bipartisan majority. They said they were 
against it because somehow or another it interfered with the grassroots 
lobbying.
  I have an amendment which we will bring up when this previous 
question is defeated, which says that gifts will no longer be permitted 
to be given to Members of Congress in the forms of meals, free trips, 
free costly golf vacations or anything else from members of the lobby, 
from the lobbyists.
  I urge the new Republican Members, today you will decide whether you 
are in lock-step with this new Republican majority and the Speaker, or 
you are committed to the public. If you are committed to the public, 
vote against the previous question. Let us do the public's business 
today and prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts, free meals, free 
vacations, free golf trips, and all other manner of freebies to Members 
of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Texas mentioned lockstep. Yes, we Republicans are 
in lockstep. We are in lockstep with the message that was sent by the 
American people on November 8, and we are going to accomplish the 
things they asked us to do.
  That means shrinking the size of this Congress by one-third, 
eliminating 600 jobs, and setting the example for what we will do when 
we take up the 100 days Contract With America in which we will shrink 
Government and we will grow the private sector. That is what we are 
laying the groundwork here today for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished member 
from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for 
yielding me this time.
  It is the 4th of January, but it seems like the 4th of July, to me. 
It is Independence Day. It is Independence Day in this House, as we 
begin to set ourselves free from the shackles of what America knows is 
the status quo, business as usual.
  I hardly need to remind my colleagues about the Dark Ages, when 
committee chairmen zealously perpetuated their turfs; when Members 
missed committee meetings because votes were taken by proxy; when 
committee meetings could be held in the dead of the night behind closed 
doors, sometimes locked closed doors, locked to the minority; when 
Members could come to this floor and apparently wilfully disclose 
classified information without admonition; when large tax bills could 
pass on the slimmest of margins and huge spending packages could slide 
through on a voice vote.
  The excesses of Congresses past are well documented. On November 8, 
Americans sent a message. Well, Mr. Speaker, message received. Limiting 
the terms of committee chairmen, banning proxy voting, establishing 
truth in budgeting, reducing staff, opening up and streamlining the 
committee process, mandating recorded votes on spending bills, these 
changes today will make this a more responsive and responsible House. 
By laying this groundwork for a new beginning, we take the first 
concrete steps toward earning back the trust of the people that we are 
here to serve.
  I am pleased that this rules package includes a simple but important 
requirement that Members wishing access to classified material sign an 
oath of secrecy, a powerful change that should increase Members' 
awareness and accountability where national security is at stake.
  At the same time, we are taking major steps to bring sunshine into 
the daily workings of this House's business and to ensure individual 
Members' accountability for all of their actions. All around, this is a 
balanced of package of substantive change.
  It is not exclusive. There will be more, and I invite the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] to join me in 
sponsoring my bill that bans lobbyist-paid travel, if he wants further 
reform. This is the beginning step.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of these new rules 
today. It is not the final thing, but it is the most important thing we 
are going to do, because it is going to show America we are serious 
about making the changes. Of course, there will be more oncoming. Today 
it is a good agenda. It is an American agenda, and it is today's 
agenda, so let us pass it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud new Member of the 104th 
Congress, and I want to speak just for a moment to my fellow new 
Members, because we all campaigned for reform. I urge you, do not get 
cold feet.
  I come armed with the Constitution of the United States of America 
that says ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a 
more perfect Union,'' among other things, ``secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity,'' not to Congress, not to 
individual congressional Members, but the people want for themselves 
the right to live and the right to know that their Congress is not 
owned and bought.

                              {time}  1500

  The American people want reform, not phony reform but real reform. 
They want to know that the ties of special interests are now really 
broken. They want to know that the days of free meals and free trips 
and special privileges are over. They are angry and we did hear their 
voices. We the Democratic Members heard their voices in November, and 
today we want to start fresh and anew talking about reform. But we need 
to go a lot further. If we want to send a real signal that we are 
really changing Washington, we need to ban gifts from lobbyists and 
special interests. As Members of Congress, we should not be using 
public office for private gain. We are here to make change, not to 
protect the old order. Let us begin by having an open debate. What is 
wrong with amendments allowing us to raise the voice of the American 
people? No more closed rules, no more status quo. Let the American 
people realize that we are not for sale.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out to the gentlewoman, I know she is a freshman 
Member, but in the last Congress, the 103d Congress, 70 percent of 
every rule that came to this floor under Speaker Foley was a 
restricted, closed, or modified rule. We are reversing that through 
your order, sir, and we will have open rules in this House. We will 
have openness, fairness, and accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder], the very distinguished new member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to point out that it is clear what the theme of the day 
is from your side and, that is, gifts from lobbyists and that is going 
to appeal not to the people in this body but to the people watching 
this on C-SPAN.
  It is worth noting that after 40 years of rule, including the last 2 
when the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate and 
also the White House, that this should have been able to have been 
passed. But this rule is not about gifts from lobbyists. That is a bill 
to come. This rule does not include amendments for campaign finance 
reform or parking at Washington National or indeed paid travel from 
lobbyists. This rule has to do with process, process of how Congress 
acts, the committees, the staffs, the way we budget. We will deal with 
those issues at a later date in separate bills. We have done that in 
the past. We have cooperated in trying to get campaign finance reform 
to the floor, in trying to get lobbying reform to this House, all in 
stand-alone, individual bills. Let us be honest about it.
  We understand your point of view in the minority, trying to distract 
Americans' attention from the issue of the day, which is passing a rule 
by which we live for the next 2 years. This rule deals with process, 
how Congress conducts itself. Let us contain our comments to that 
point.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  [[Page H14]] (Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like our Republican colleagues as a new 
Member of this Congress, I came seeking constructive change, and of 
that change I was most eager to join with our Republican colleagues the 
concept of opening this House.
  Yet at this first opportunity for change, this Republican rules 
package fails. I do not know what they call a rule in California or New 
York where you get no amendment and no alternative, but in Texas we 
call that closed government.
  You propose two completely closed rules, two rules that do not allow 
one new Member, one old Member, one Republican, one Democrat to offer 
any amendment to this package. More than that, you have done what is 
unprecedented perhaps in the history of this country, and that is to 
provide a closed rule within a bill that is brought up under a closed 
rule.
  This is not open government. This is not reform. It is more closed 
government as usual. This is barring the door, slamming the door shut 
and actually then barring that door for people to participate in the 
process of democracy.
  It was only a few months ago that the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] suggested that when a closed rule is foisted on 
this House, the Members are denied the opportunity to represent their 
constituents. That is no less true today.
  You have said that this is a new chapter in the history of this 
House, but you have made it an edited, indeed a censored chapter. You 
have said you have changed the course of business in this House, but I 
would submit, to use the words of the distinguished gentleman from New 
York, that it is merely shortchange.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to say to Members on that side of the aisle how refreshing it is 
now to see Members from the Democratic Party standing up and fighting 
for those minority rights that we fought for for 40 years on this 
floor. We welcome you into this debate and we are going to open up this 
House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], one of the senior Members of this House.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today is truly a momentous occasion. After 
serving in the minority for 11 terms, new and historic horizons are 
being opened as Republicans become the majority party in the House of 
Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
  We are beginning the first day of the 104th Congress with a full 
schedule of much-needed internal reforms in the House of 
Representatives. We will vote on eight separate reforms including a 
reduction of committee staff by one-third, requiring that committee 
meetings be open to the public and requiring that members of committees 
be present for votes in their committees.
  This new openness in the committee process is important because it is 
the first step in establishing the accountability that the American 
people are demanding of the Congress. The most important decisions on 
legislation are often made during committee deliberations. Members of 
committees become experts in the areas of the committee's jurisdiction 
and other Members rely on their judgment.
  One of the most important reforms we are voting on today is the ban 
of proxy voting in committees. Proxy voting allows another Member to 
cast a vote on legislation for a Member who is absent. Of the 22 
standing committees in the last Congress, only 4 banned absentee 
voting. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee which has never 
allowed the use of proxy voting. All Members should be present to vote 
on issues before the committee.
  Accountability to the American public begins in the committee system 
by Members being present for meetings and votes, and those meetings 
being open to the public. We must assure all of our constituents of the 
seriousness with which we approach our work of deliberating the issues 
of importance to our country. Only then can the integrity of the 
Congress be reestablished.
  Today's action can be defined in five words: ``Accountability in the 
People's House.''
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the closed 
rule on the Republican rules package. This package contains many 
important reforms that I support, but it does not contain the most 
crucial reform, a ban on gifts from lobbyists. The gift ban is central 
to our ability to break the bond between the special interests and the 
Congress. That is what the public clamored for, separate special 
interests from the institution of the Congress.
  The Democratic proposal would ban all gifts to Members of Congress. 
It bans meals, entertainment, and travel. It says no more business as 
usual.
  On this first day of the 104th Congress when so many hopes are pinned 
on people reclaiming their Government, it is tie to end the special 
interests' influence over Congress. It is time to say no. No to 
dinners, no to golf junkets, no to the old style perks and privileges. 
The only privilege we need is the privilege to serve in this body.
  The new Republican majority claims that they are leading a revolution 
to reform this institution. That is what they told the American public. 
But keeping closed rules, protecting perks and privileges is just more 
hypocrisy.
  Support real change. Open the rule and support a gift ban.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why the Republicans oppose 
the Democratic rules change in this closed rule. Our rules change makes 
every rules change proposed by the Republicans today pale in 
comparison. Theirs are plastic and papier mache. Ours have the hard 
steel of real change because they address the key issue of the 
integrity of Congress.
  Today as we speak on this floor with a few Members, so many others 
are enjoying this wonderful first day of service in Congress. They came 
here promising to represent their districts, not the special interests. 
Our rules change addresses that straightforwardly. It prohibits and 
limits any gifts from lobbyists and special interest groups so that new 
Members and old Members alike will not be ensnared in these special 
interest tangles. And equally important, Mr. Speaker, it closes or at 
least restricts a dangerous loophole.
  By the rules of the House I cannot go out and give a speech and earn 
one dollar. But I can go out, and in the name of writing a book, 
supposedly earn legally millions of dollars. That kind of ridiculous 
loophole puts this House in jeopardy and every Member of it.
  I would suggest that we stick with the Democratic changes and defeat 
the previous question.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to a very 
distinguished new Member, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Graham].
  (Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I came from South Carolina, a State that a 
few years ago sent about 18 people to jail because they took shirts, 
they took shoes, they took golf trips, and they sold their vote. If 
Members want to reform me, I challenge them to do so. But everything in 
its time. For 40 years Democrats have had control of this body to do 
that.
  What the American people need to know, and what I want constituents 
to know at home is what we are talking about doing the first day is to 
change the way this institution operates. Newt Gingrich, the new 
Speaker of the House, has done something that no Speaker of the House 
has ever done in this body, Republican or Democrat. He has instituted a 
measure to limit his own term as Speaker. I congratulate him for doing 
that. Leadership and reform begins at the top, and that is what he has 
demonstrated, and on behalf of the freshman class we thank him for 
doing something other than talk.
  Also in this rule is a provision that would limit committee chairmen 
to 
[[Page H15]] serve 6 years. If we want to change America, that is a 
great place to start, and that is what we are talking about today, 
changing this institution to breathe new life into it.
  Mr. Speaker, ideas do matter, and they are going to have a new day.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, approximately 1 hour ago you addressed 
every Member of this body and the House, you addressed the entire 
United States of America and you said this is the 104th Congress. Think 
of it, 208 years. For 208 years, Mr. Speaker, we have existed under the 
rule of the majority.
  Two hundred eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, as a student of history you 
know that the Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution 
rejecting the Articles of Confederation that have a super majority 
requirement. By a rules change, with no committee hearings, with only 
20 minutes of debate, you want to strike a blow at the most fundamental 
tenet of constitutional principle: rule of the majority, and revert to 
the Articles of Confederation.
  Mr. Speaker, how can you do this on the first day of your tenure in 
office?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to be somewhat amused by the shenanigans 
that are going on on the floor right now when we are being told that we 
are completely shackling the rights of the minority by not allowing 
them to have the central reform that should be in this rules package; 
that is, the gift and lobby reform.
  It has to be pointed out that for 40 years Democrats have had the 
opportunity to pass this fundamental gift and lobby reform, and yet 
they have not been able to do it in a timely way that got through both 
the House and the Senate and was signed into law. For them now to claim 
that somehow, somehow this is preventing them from doing this when they 
know substantively we will get to this later, the question I have is 
why did they choose the gift and lobby reform as opposed to fundamental 
campaign finance reform, that is the elimination of special interest 
contributions, They know and I know that about $250,000 plus goes into 
every single incumbent's campaign on a cyclical basis. That is real 
influence that is being purchased by special interest groups, and yet 
there is only one group, one group in the entire Congress, not the 
House Republicans, not the Senate Democrats, not the Senate Republicans 
that do not want to limit that genuine purchasing of influence, and 
that group is the House Democrats.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me refresh my friend from Cleveland's memory. We did 
pass the gift rule ban last Congress and it was killed in the other 
body by the Republican Party.
  I also would like to refresh my friend's memory and suggest to him 
that we did pass campaign finance reform and it was killed also by 
Republicans.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I will not yield at this point. I would yield in a second 
to my friend using his time.
  So we have complied with the wishes of the American people on two 
basic, fundamental reforms which is banning gifts and reducing the 
influence of outside interests in campaign reform. We passed them in 
this House not very long ago, a few months ago, sent them over to the 
Senate and they were killed by Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of congressional reform 
and in support of several parts of the proposed rules package. No 
Member in this Chamber has a premium on what's best for this Nation. We 
all have a contract with America.
  The contract to which each Member is bound, is to work in the best 
interests of the American people.
  On election day, we offered our services to this great country, and 
voters from Rocky Mount, NC, to the Silicone Valley of California, 
accepted our offer. We all have a contract with America.
  That contract involves being open to the challenge of change. I will 
vote for several of the reforms offered in this rules package. However, 
I will vote against those proposals that are considered dangerous to 
the stability of the American people or undermine the Constitution of 
this country.
  We must get beyond partisan politics and move to the high ground of 
principle--serving all Americans.
  But, real reform must include an end to gag rules. There are 
important amendments that would be offered, amendments designed to 
improve and perfect this rules package, but Members are muzzled because 
the majority has insisted on a closed rule for this debate.
  No Member can offer an amendment such as the gift ban. That is an 
issue that we debated and supported last Congress. As I am informed, 
the gift ban we passed would have included royalties from books. If we 
are to be leaders, we must also lead in following the rules under which 
we are governed. In this House, we have resolved that no Member should 
be enriched beyond what the people pay. That resolve should not end 
with the Speaker, it should begin with him.
  I will support those thoughtful reforms that have been offered by the 
majority. But, I will continue to stand up as part of the loyal 
opposition when I believe pomposity, audacity and duplicity confront 
us.
  No party or person has an exclusive on such things as family values 
and personal responsibility. Those are standards I absolutely hold 
dear. And no party or person should be able to take the right to speak 
and participate from any of us. Too many have sacrificed for that 
precious liberty. We all, 435 Representatives, have a contract with 
America. Let no one forget.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with this freest and most 
open debate in congressional history, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Greensboro, NC [Mr. Coble].

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, for having 
yielded me this time.
  Reform the House? We Republicans have previously engaged in this 
exercise of attempting to reduce the number of staff positions and the 
number of committees. So this is not a case of first impression.
  But each time we proposed these reductions, they fell upon deaf ears, 
and the Democrat leadership rejected our attempts to streamline the 
Congress, and in so doing serve as better stewards for taxpayers.
  During this session, pending passage of this proposal today, there 
will be 25 fewer subcommittees, 3 fewer standing committees. This will 
save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  I am advised that we have eliminated 80 positions on one committee 
alone. I am not uncaring nor insensitive about this result, but these 
positions should never have been created in the first place. In 
applying retroactive psychology, Mr. Speaker, if our Democrat 
leadership friends had accepted our previous proposals which would have 
saved taxpayers millions of dollars, we Republicans may not be in the 
majority today.
  But in this town, pride of authorship is jealously guarded, and many 
people are reluctant to permit any good change unless they can claim 
the credit therefor.
  Today we Republicans again are offering proposals of change which we 
have previously attempted to no avail. On this day, Mr. Speaker, we 
will, indeed, prevail.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us a message in 
November. They want less government, less bureaucracy, more ethics, and 
more accountability. They did not vote for arrogant government, and 
they did not vote for coronations of any one party or individual.
  This rule is a gag rule, no amendments to the Republican rules 
package. While the Speaker's first statement was gracious, the first 
act of this new Republican majority is not about re- 
[[Page H16]] form. It is about congressional retreat. For all of their 
talk about reforming the old guard, Republicans today are doing 
something that probably no other Congress in history has ever done. 
They have proposed a closed rule within a bill brought up under a 
closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, let us have openness and accountability.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with the most open and free 
debate in the history of congressional history on any opening day, I 
yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Glenwood 
Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], a new member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, we are talking about today new management 
versus old management, and it is often tough for old management to get 
used to the new management ideas. So what you have to do on the old 
management side of the aisle, you have to take a look and say, ``How 
are we going to debate these rascals over there that want new 
management, that want accountability to the American people? How can we 
explain the fact we have allowed ghost voting, that we have had poor 
management for 40 years, allowed misleading budget information, allowed 
mostly closed rules, 70 percent last year? How can we explain to the 
American people there is no sunshine law in Congress? How can we 
explain these things so those rascals under the new management do not 
disclose the problems the American people recognized this last 
November?'' The way you do it is you bring in distraction. You do not 
talk about the positive elements of this rule, which are manyfold, 
elimination of committee staff, no more ghost voting, no more false 
budget numbers. You have got to bring in distraction.
  So let us talk about gifts. I guess if it was your rule change maybe 
we ought to talk about inherited money and see if we have the same kind 
of merits.
  Do not distract us. Work for improvement. Work for progress. Join the 
new management.


                      announcement by the speaker

  The SPEAKER. There are to be no demonstrations in the gallery. Those 
in the gallery are here as guests of the House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule.
  I agree with many of the reforms, but there are many, many 
opportunities for us to perfect this package. We are passing up an 
opportunity to close forever the huge ethical loophole in congressional 
activities, the potential for compromise by special interests. We can 
do so by banning gifts and by restricting the benefits from lobbyists 
and by restricting the benefits one can receive from our writings as we 
do now from our speeches.
  The American people sent us a message in November. They said they 
wanted personal accountability. They certainly do not wish for us to 
enrich ourselves as we serve them.
  Let us seize this opportunity to clean up this huge ethical loophole 
and truly reform congressional activities on this first open day of the 
debate of the 104th Congress.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as a 
Member of this House on the Democratic side of the aisle who for 20 
years never brought a bill to the floor under a closed rule, I am sure 
that I speak with credibility that this change is supposed to be about 
opening up this debate, and in fact that has not happened.
  The test is not whether this is more open than what we did on opening 
day. The test is whether or not this rule is open or closed, and this 
rule is, in fact, closed.
  What is your fear of having an open rule on congressional reform? 
That we would overreform the House of Representatives? Hard to 
conceived of that. What is your fear of having an open rule when you in 
fact have the votes to beat down any amendment that you do not like? 
What is your fear, that we would overreform? I do not think so.
  Your fear is we would offer what is not in here. The point is this: 
It is what you do not put in these rules that disturbs us and disturbs 
the American public, and that is breaking the link between lawyers, 
lobbyists, money, and legislators, ending the gifts that can be given 
to legislators and recognizing when the freshman Members took the oath 
here today, they were given a voting card, not a right to receive gifts 
to NFL games, to lunches and to dinners.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with debate on the most open, 
open reform package that has come to this floor on an opening day, I 
yield 30 seconds to a very hard-working member of the Joint Committee 
on the Organization of Congress, my friend and classmate, the gentleman 
from Cape Girardeau, MO [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  You know, I have been somewhat amused sitting here listening to our 
colleagues on the minority side talking about open rules. I hope 
members of the American public know that we are in the process of 
reforming the Rules of the House of Representatives here today, that 
are going to bring a higher level of reform to this body than it has 
experienced in generations.
  I am amused by some of the rhetoric here and chagrined really at what 
I consider to be the nitpicking. It ill serves you, I think, to be so 
petty in your quibbling when we are bringing about major reform to this 
body.
  Mr. BONIOR. Well, with all due respect to my friend--and he is my 
friend--the gentleman from Missouri, breaking the ban and the link 
between lobbyists and lawyers and the power in this town in this 
institution we do not consider as petty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, if the debate is free, and truly free, then 
why cannot we offer significant amendments for reform?
  Here is a list of what we can vote for; there is not a list of what 
we cannot vote for, because you will not permit us to offer certain 
amendments, and I offer this observation.
  But today there is no longer an opportunity for Members to fully 
participate in offering amendments to reform the House as it should be 
reformed. Students of history should note Bob Wise did not say this, 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] said that on opening day of 1991.
  Why is it that those who say they want change--and we all want 
change--will not permit us to bring to this floor a ban on gifts from 
lobbyists, a ban on dinners from lobbyists? Is this something radical? 
It has passed the House twice before. Why can we not bring to the floor 
the amendment to limit royalties and address another area of concern to 
the House? If you want change, then you have to vote for it. If you 
want change, then you have to work for it. If you want change, then you 
have to let true change flourish, and you have to let us offer these 
amendments.
  This is not true change, this is not reform that you are doing. You 
said you wanted open rules; make them open.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate under the most open 
process in congressional history, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Roanoke, VA [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a new day in the people's House, and a new day 
calls for new rules, and we are going to deliver those today.
  Let me say to our friends on the other side of the aisle who are 
claiming our reforms today do not go far enough, for 40 years you ran 
this place behind closed doors, keeping every perk, privilege, and 
partisan advantage. Now, suddenly, you are trying to tell the American 
people you have now become reformers. Well, I realize everyone should 
have ambitious New 
[[Page H17]] Year's resolutions, but this one is just too hard to 
swallow. Today, despite the resistance from the minority party, we are 
going to bring more reform to the House in 12 hours than the other 
party brought in 40 years of iron-fisted rule.
  We are wiping out three full standing committees and over 20 
subcommittees; we are slashing bloated committee staffs, imposing term 
limits on the Speaker and committee chairmen and eliminating proxy 
voting.
  Finally, we are going to start making Congress live by the laws that 
American businesses and families live by. I think I can speak for many 
Americans when I say it is about time.


                      announcement by the speaker

  The SPEAKER. The gallery will not participate in the proceedings of 
the House. The gallery may watch as guests of the House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman who just spoke could not 
join us today, as he was one who in fact did vote on the gift ban in 
the last Congress when the issue was before us. I am sorry he did not 
join us today, when this party in fact has real power but I guess that 
is not in the cards.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
  Mr. MASCARA. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I too am proud to be a Member of the 104th Congress. 
Like many of my new colleagues, I campaigned on the issue of reform. I 
want to urge other Members to not get cold feet now.
  Our task today is very simple: It is to prove to the American people 
that we care more about the public interest than we do about the 
special interests; it is to provide that Congress is not for sale.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not royalty and, therefore, we do not need gifts. 
We do not need free trips or free meals or special privileges. We are 
stewards of the public trust. Our constituents elected us to work hard, 
to make tough decisions, and to stand up for what is right.
  As Members of Congress, we represent the public interest, not private 
profits.
  We are here to make change, not to protect the old order. Let us 
begin by having a open debate about the real needs of our constituents. 
No more closed rules, no more status quo.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the most open debate in 
congressional history, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Ocala, FL [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
  Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker--it is a wonderful afternoon.
  I thank my colleague from California.
  My colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle talked about 
seizing the opportunity. He agrees with a lot of the reforms that we 
are going to present here shortly, but he is complaining about the 
parliamentary procedure. So I say to him why did he not, he and his 
party, bring all of these forward during the last 40 years? Let us take 
this opportunity to look at one of these, the Congressional 
Accountability Act, that we are going to pass here on opening day.
  What we are saying is that it will not be business as usual around 
here, and we intend to make Congress operate in a more fair and open 
manner.
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``When a man assumes public trust, he should 
consider himself as public property.'' By enacting this new set of 
rules for the House, we are stating unequivocally we believe in 
practicing what we preach.
  We must continue providing the bold and decisive leadership that 
brought us to this moment here in history.
  I urge my colleague from Florida who talked about seizing the 
opportunity: Let us move forward.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to answer my friend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. He 
raised the issue why did we not do this before? In fact, we did the 
very reform that the gentleman from Florida spoke about, and that was 
congressional accountability.
  We authored the legislation, we passed it in this body. It was killed 
by the Republicans in the other body. We cane back, incorporated it in 
a rule which was governable for the rest of the session.
  So, to suggest to this Chamber and to the folks who are listening 
that we did not do that is just not the case.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker and Members, I do not think this is a debate 
about whether this is the most open of open rules or closed rules in 
the history of this Congress, because it is a completely closed rule.
  If I had in my hand today an amendment to try to preserve for us the 
right to ban the gifts from lobbyists, I would not be able to do that 
right now. So let me quote to you some words that I think are most 
eloquently stated, back in May 25, 1993, ``With closed rules, voices 
all across America are silenced. Republicans want the people to have 
choices, and that can only be done by having open rules.'' Those very 
eloquent words were uttered by our new Speaker, Mr. Newt Gingrich.
  I would urge all of my colleagues in this House to recognize the 
words uttered by our new Speaker, that we should have open rules. This 
is a closed rule, it is not a good way to start this first year of this 
new Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with the most open debate in 
congressional history on opening day, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
chairman emeritus of the Committee on Rules, my friend the gentleman 
from Kingsport, TN [Mr. Quillen].
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I have been a member of the House for 32 years and a member of 
the Rules Committee for 30 of those years, always in the minority until 
now. I have probably spoken out on the House floor against closed rules 
more times than any other Member of this body.
  But even as a member of the minority, I have always believed that 
there were certain issues such as this that should be decided under a 
restricted or closed rule. To the best of my recollection, the 
resolutions establishing the rules of the House have been considered 
under a completely closed rule--with a straight up or down vote. This 
rule will allow Members the opportunity to vote on nine separate 
portions of the rules package. This is certainly a much more open 
process than any that I have seen in my 32 years.
  I think the minority should appreciate that the Republican majority 
chose to open up consideration of this rules package instead of 
following the traditional closed process that the Democrats embraced 
and promoted when they controlled the House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Omaha, NE [Mr. Christensen], a new Member who has joined us.
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Republican 
majority, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Democrat 
Party to make sure that these reforms come to place, but we have to 
remember that the American people sent us to do change. They sent us 
here to send a message and to make sure that the opening day activities 
included in the Contract With America were enacted, and that is making 
Congress live under the same laws that the rest of the American people 
have to live under. That is cutting one out of every three 
congressional staffers, and that is looking at an audit and getting 
that started.
  What I ask is: ``Let's get to the business the American people sent 
us here to do, and that's the Contract With America.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a new member of the Committee on Rules.
  [[Page H18]] Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I admit that there are 
great parliamentary debaters on the other side of the aisle. 
Accordingly, I submit that they must do much better than this, to 
divert the attention of the American people from what we are doing 
today. What we are doing today is requiring all laws that apply to the 
rest of the country to apply to Congress. We are cutting the number of 
committee staff by a third. We are limiting the terms of committee 
chairs and subcommittee chairmanships to 6 years. We are banning the 
scandalous practice, scandalous practice, called proxy voting where 
Members did not have to go to a committee, and then the chairman, even 
if they did not have anybody there, did not have any of the Democrats 
there, they would ultimately win because he had the proxies of all the 
Members here, truly scandalous, profoundly undemocratic, conduct. That 
is what we are banning today. That is what we are doing in these rules.
  And what the Democrats now are saying is, ``Ah.'' They are using the 
parliamentary tactic of there is the Christmas gift for all children in 
the world is missing from this rules package. It is not going to work. 
That is not going to divert the attention of the American people from 
what we are doing today, and they are going to know what we are doing, 
they deserve what we are doing, and we are going to do it today.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is recognized 
for 4\1/4\ minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge every Member of the House 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the motion to 
commit.
  The Republican leadership would have us believe that they can pass 
eight or nine bills in a flurry of legislative accomplishment and 
debate.
  In fact, there can be no debate; there can be no discussion; there 
can be no effort to amend, or strengthen, or truly consider any of 
their proposals.
  This is what we call a closed rule. That means that unless you 
support every dot and comma in the Republican agenda, it is a closed 
discussion. And as far as serious public policy is concerned, it is a 
closed door.
  That is a tragedy, because the American people deserve more than 
rubber-stamp Republicanism.
  That is why we must reject this rule, and open the crucial issue of 
congressional reform to discussion and improvement.
  The fact is, Democrats do not want to defeat this rules package. We 
want real reform. That is why many of the proposals being made today--
such as making Congress abide by the laws it writes--have already been 
passed by the House. And that is why Democrats fought for even tougher 
reforms, such as a bill to curb the influence of lobbyists, which the 
Republicans defeated.
  The Republican reforms are all well and good--but they simply do not 
go far enough. They are a handful of procedural and administrative 
changes here in the House. Many of them are positive.
 Many of them deserve wide, bipartisan support--and they will have it.

  But they do not touch the real problem: the rampant hand of special 
interests here on Capitol Hill.
  If the Republicans were serious about attacking special interests, 
why would they fight the Democratic proposal to ban gifts from 
lobbyists?
  Do we want to go along and get along, by rubber-stamping this closed 
rule? Or do we want to rein in the special interests by defeating the 
rule, and having a real debate about reform?
  I urge the latter course. But at the same time, we must all recognize 
a broader point.
  All of this Republican talk of reform--as necessary as it may be, and 
as productive as it may be--is ultimately a distraction from the real 
job at hand.
  Improving the lives of the hard-working, middle-class families who 
have seen their incomes erode, and their standard of living slide, for 
15 painful years.
  No one should pretend that these narrow procedural changes will do 
anything to raise incomes, to restore economic security, to revive hope 
and faith in America's future.
  And for that matter, no one should pretend that the Contract With 
America, with its huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and inevitable 
explosion of the Federal deficit--will improve people's lives, either.
  Come back to my district in St. Louis. Meet some of the families 
where the husband works during the day, the wife works at night, and 
they barely ever see each other. Meet some of the families that have 
given up every minute of family time working two, three, even four 
jobs--and still cannot make ends meet.
  Then ask yourself whether some new procedural change can make a 
difference in their lives.
  My colleagues, I urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question, 
and vote ``yes'' on the motion to commit, so we can have serious 
congressional reform. And then let us get down to the real business of 
the people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say with all due respect to my 
colleagues that I have never heard such preposterous arguments in my 
entire 14 years as a Member of this House, and let me say that this 
clearly is the most open debate that we have ever experienced on 
opening day in the history of the U.S. Congress. It is exactly what 
Speaker Gingrich has called for, and it is exactly what we are 
creating.
  Now, over the past 2 years I had the privilege, mostly during 
calendar year 1993, to work with my friends, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard], the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] as Republican 
members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. We were 
charged with dealing with major reform in this institution. Reform in 
this institution is going to help working Americans because we are, by 
nearly 25 percent, reducing the number of committees in this place so 
we do not have 109 committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over 
the Pentagon, 52 subcommittees and full committees with jurisdiction 
over programs dealing with children and families, and 92 subcommittees 
and committees dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency. We are 
creating an institution that is more accountable.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority in years past has prevented 
us from having the opportunity to even consider those things. On this 
opening day we are doing it. We are doing it under the most open 
process in the history of this institution, and I thank my friends for 
joining with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                      announcement by the speaker

  The SPEAKER. The Chair wishes to enunciate a clear policy with 
respect to the conduct of electronic votes.
  As Members are aware, clause 5 of rule XV provides that Members shall 
have not less than 15 minutes in which to answer an ordinary rollcall 
vote or quorum call. The rule obviously establishes 15 minutes as a 
minimum. Still, with the cooperation of the Members, a vote can easily 
be completed in that time. On occasion, the Chair has announced, and 
then strictly enforced, a policy of closing electronic votes as soon as 
possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes. Members appreciated 
and cooperated with the Chair's enforcement of the policy on that 
occasion.
  The Chair desires that those examples be made the regular practice of 
the House. To that end, the Chair enlists the assistance of all Members 
in avoiding the unnecessary loss of time in conducting the business of 
the House. The Chair encourages all Members to depart for the Chamber 
prompt- 
[[Page H19]] ly upon the appropriate bell and light signal. As in 
recent Congresses, the cloakrooms should not forward to the Chair 
requests to hold a vote by electronic device, but should simply apprise 
inquiring Members of the time remaining on the voting clock.
  Although no occupant of the chair would prevent a Member who is in 
the well of the Chamber before the announcement of the result from 
casting his or her vote, each occupant of the chair will have the full 
support of the Speaker in striving to close each electronic vote at the 
earliest opportunity. Members should not rely on signals relayed from 
outside the Chamber to assume that votes will be held open until they 
arrive in the Chamber.
                              {time}  1550

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 199, not voting 3, as follows:
                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bishop
     Gingrich
     Jackson-Lee

                              {time}  1605

  Mr. STUMP and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                 motion to commit offered by mr. bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. Res. --

       Mr. Bonior moves to commit the resolution H.Res.    to a 
     select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same to 
     the House forthwith with only the following amendment:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the resolution (H.Res.   ) 
     adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 
     One Hundred Fourth Congress, [captioned Committee Print on 
     H.Res.   , bearing the date of January 4, 1995], as modified 
     by the amendment printed in section 4 of this resolution. The 
     resolution, as modified, shall be debatable initially for 30 
     minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the Majority 
     Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution, as modified, to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except as specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
       Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution, as 
     modified, shall be divided among ten parts, to wit: each of 
     the nine sections of title I; and then title II. Each portion 
     of the divided question shall be debatable separately for 20 
     minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the Majority 
     Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees, and shall 
     be disposed of in the order stated.
       Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the tenth portion 
     of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that 
     the House commit the resolution, as modified, to a select 
     committee, with or without instructions. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
     commit to final adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 4. At the end of Title I add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. (109). The Rules of the House of Representatives of 
     the One Hundred Third Congress, including applicable 
     provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted 
     rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Third 
     Congress, together with such amendments thereto as may 
     otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the 
     One Hundred Fourth Congress, with the following amendment:
                      ban on gifts from lobbyists

       (a) Clause 4 of rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended to read as follows:
       ``4. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives shall accept a gift, knowing that such gift 
     is provided directly or indirectly by a paid lobbyist, a 
     lobbying firm (a person or entity that has 1 or more 
     employees who are lobbyists on behalf of a client other than 
     that person or entity), or an agent of a Foreign principal 
     (as defined in the foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938).
       ``(2) The prohibition in subparagraph (1) includes the 
     following:
       ``(A) Anything provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent 
     which the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe 
     is paid for, charged to, or reimbursed by a client or firm of 
     such lobbyist or foreign agent.
       ``(B) Anything provided by a lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or 
     a foreign agent to an entity that is maintained or controlled 
     by a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(C) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     [[Page H20]] Code of 1986) made by a lobbyist, a lobbying 
     firm, or a foreign agent on the basis of a designation, 
     recommendation, or other specification of a Member, officer, 
     or employee (not including a mass mailing or other 
     solicitation directed to a broad category of persons or 
     entities).
       ``(D) A contribution or other payment by a lobbyist, a 
     lobbying firm, or a foreign agent to a legal expense fund 
     established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or 
     employee.
       ``(E) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent in lieu of an 
     honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(F) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a 
     lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent relating to a 
     conference, retreat, or similar event, sponsored by or 
     affiliated with an official congressional organization, for 
     or on behalf of Members, officers, or employees.
       ``(3) The following are not gifts subject to the 
     prohibition in subparagraph (1):
       ``(A) Anything for which the recipient pays the market 
     value, or does not use and promptly returns to the donor.
       ``(B) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully 
     made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event 
     sponsored by a political organization described in section 
     527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(C) Food or refreshments of nominal value offered other 
     than as part of a meal.
       ``(D) Benefits resulting from the business, employment, or 
     other outside activities of the spouse of a Member, officer, 
     or employee, if such benefits are customarily provided to 
     others in similar circumstances.
       ``(E) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(F) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of a Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(4)(A) A gift given by an individual under circumstances 
     which make it clear that the gift is given for a nonbusiness 
     purpose and is motivated by a family relationship or close 
     personal friendship and not by the position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee shall not be subject to the prohibition 
     in subparagraph (1).
       ``(B) A gift shall not be considered to be given for a 
     nonbusiness purpose if the Member, officer, or employee
      has reason to believe the individual giving the gift will 
     seek--
       ``(i) to deduct the value of such gift as a business 
     expense on the individual's Federal income tax return, or
       ``(ii) direct or indirect reimbursement or any other 
     compensation for the value of the gift from a client or 
     employer of such lobbyist or foreign agent.
       ``(C) In determining if the giving of a gift is motivated 
     by a family relationship or close personal friendship, at 
     least the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(i) The history of the relationship between the 
     individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift, 
     including whether or not gifts have previously been exchanged 
     by such individuals.
       ``(ii) Whether the Member, officer, or employee has reason 
     to believe the gift was purchased by the individual who gave 
     the item.
       ``(iii) Whether the Member, officer, or employee has reason 
     to believe the individual who gave the gift also at the same 
     time gave the same or similar gifts to other Members, 
     officers, or employees.
       ``(b) In addition to the restriction on receiving gifts 
     from paid lobbyists, lobbying firms, and agents of foreign 
     principals provided by paragraph (a) and except as provided 
     in this Rule, no Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives shall knowingly accept a gift from any other 
     person.
       ``(c)(1) For the purpose of this clause, the term `gift' 
     means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, 
     hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary 
     value. The term includes gifts of services, training, 
     transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, 
     by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement 
     after the expense has been incurred.
       ``(2) A gift to the spouse or dependent of a Member, 
     officer, or employee (or a gift to any other individual based 
     on that individual's relationship with the Member, officer, 
     or employee) shall be considered a gift to the Member, 
     officer, or employee if it is given with the knowledge and 
     acquiescence of the Member, officer, or employee and the 
     Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe the gift 
     was given because of the official position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee.
       ``(d) The restrictions in paragraph (b) shall not apply to 
     the following:
       ``(1) Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value, or does not use and promptly returns 
     to the donor.
       ``(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully 
     made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event 
     sponsored by a political organization described in section 
     527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of a 
     personal or family relationship unless the Member, officer, 
     or employee has reason to believe that, under the 
     circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official 
     position of the Member, officer, or employee and not because 
     of the personal or family relationship. The Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct shall provide guidance on the 
     applicability of this clause and examples of circumstances 
     under which a gift may be accepted under this exception.
       ``(4) A contribution or other payment to a legal expense 
     fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or 
     employee, that is otherwise lawfully made, if the person 
     making the contribution or payment is identified for the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
       ``(5) Any food or refreshments which the recipient 
     reasonably believes to have a value of less than $20.
       ``(6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of 
     the Senate or the House of Representatives.
       ``(7) Food, refreshments, lodging, and other benefits--
       ``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities (or other outside activities that are not 
     connected to the duties of the Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder) of the Member, officer, or employee, or 
     the spouse of the Member, officer, or employee, if such 
     benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the 
     official position of the Member, officer, or employee and are 
     customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
       ``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
       ``(C) provided by a political organization described in 
     section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 
     connection with a fundraising or campaign event sponsored by 
     such an organization.
       ``(8) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(9) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(10) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       ``(11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food, 
     refreshments, and entertainment) and other bona fide, 
     nonmonetary awards presented in recognition of public service 
     (and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment 
     provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).
       ``(12) Donations of products from the State that the Member 
     represents that are intended primarily for promotional 
     purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of 
     minimal value to any individual recipient.
       ``(13) Food, refreshments, and entertainment provided to a 
     Member or an employee of a Member in the Member's home State, 
     subject to reasonable limitations, to be established by the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
       ``(14) An item of little intrinsic value such as a greeting 
     card, baseball cap, or a T shirt.
       ``(15) Training (including food and refreshments furnished 
     to all attendees as an integral part of the training) 
     provided to a Member, officer, or employee, if such training 
     is in the interest of the House of Representatives.
       ``(16) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at 
     death.
       ``(17) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the 
     Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
       ``(18) Anything which is paid for by the Federal 
     Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the 
     Government under a Government contract.
       ``(19) A gift of personal hospitality of an individual, as 
     defined in section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act.
       ``(20) Free attendance at a widely attended event permitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (e).
       ``(21) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       ``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of 
     all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis 
     of geographic consideration;
       ``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       ``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
     employees' association or congressional credit union, in 
     which membership is related to congressional employment and 
     similar opportunities are available to large segments of the 
     public through organizations of similar size;
       ``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in 
     a manner that specifically discriminates among Government 
     employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of 
     responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher 
     rank or rate of pay;
       ``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       ``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
     participation in organization activities offered to all 
     Government employees by professional organizations if the 
     only restrictions on membership relate to professional 
     qualifications.
       [[Page H21]] ``(22) A plaque, trophy, or other memento of 
     modest value.
       ``(23) Anything for which, in exceptional circumstances, a 
     waiver is granted by the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct.
       ``(e)(1) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a Member, 
     officer, or employee may accept an offer of free attendance 
     at a widely attended convention, conference, symposium, 
     forum, panel discussion, dinner, viewing, reception, or 
     similar event, provided by the sponsor of the event, if--
       ``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in subparagraph (1) may accept a sponsor's 
     unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for an 
     accompanying individual if others in attendance will 
     generally be similarly accompanied or if such attendance is 
     appropriate to assist in the representation of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(3) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a Member, 
     officer, or employee, or the spouse or dependent thereof, may 
     accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at a 
     charity event, except that reimbursement for transportation 
     and lodging may not be accepted in connection with the event.
       ``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee, the provision of local transportation, or the 
     provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and 
     instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an 
     integral part of the event. The term does not include 
     entertainment collateral to the event, or food or 
     refreshments taken other than in a group setting with all or 
     substantially all other attendees.
       ``(f) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the 
     value of which exceeds $250 on the basis of the personal 
     relationship exception in paragraph (d)(3) or the close 
     personal friendship exception in section 106(d) of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 unless the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct issues a written deterministion 
     that one of such exceptions applies.
       ``(g)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
     authorized to adjust the dollar amount referred to in 
     paragraph (d)(5) on a periodic basis, to the extent necessary 
     to adjust for inflation.
       ``(2) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
     provide guidance setting forth reasonable steps that may be 
     taken by Members, officers, and employees, with a minimum of 
     paperwork and time, to prevent the acceptance of prohibited 
     gifts from lobbyists.
       ``(3) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item 
     because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of 
     the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity or 
     destroyed.
       ``(h)(1)(A) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a 
     reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a Member, 
     officer, or employee for necessary transportation, lodging 
     and related expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking 
     engagement, factfinding trip or similar event in connection 
     with the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an 
     officeholder shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the 
     House of Representatives and not a gift prohibited by this 
     paragraph, if the Member, officer, or employee--
       ``(i) in the case of an employee, receives advance 
     authorization, from the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works, to accept reimbursement, and
       ``(ii) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed and the authorization to the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives within 30 days after the travel is completed.
       ``(B) For purposes of clause (A), events, the activities of 
     which are substantially recreational in nature, shall not be 
     considered to be in connection with the duties of a Member, 
     officer, or employee as an officeholder.
       ``(2) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
     shall be signed by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works and shall include--
       ``(A) the name of the employee;
       ``(B) the name of the person who will make the 
     reimbursement;
       ``(C) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
       ``(D) a determination that the travel is in connection with 
     the duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not 
     create the appearance that the employee is using public 
     office for private gain.
       ``(3) Each disclosure made under subparagraph (1)(A) of 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by 
     the Member or officer (in the case of travel by that Member 
     or officer) or by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an 
     employee) and shall include--
       ``(A) a good faith estimate of total transportation 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(B) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(C) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(D) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(E) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(F) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or 
     officer, a determination that the travel was in connection 
     with the duties of the Member or officer as an officeholder 
     and would not create the appearance that the Member or 
     officer is using public office for private gain.
       ``(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
       ``(A) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for 
     travel--
       ``(i) for a period not exceeding 4 days including travel 
     time within the unanimous consent or 7 days in addition to 
     travel outside the United States; and
       ``(ii) within 24 hours before or after participation in an 
     event in the United States or within 48 hours before or after 
     participation in an event outside the United States,

     unless approved in advance by the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct;
       ``(B) is limited to reasonable expenditures for 
     transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and 
     food and refreshments, including reimbursement for necessary 
     transportation, whether or not such transportation occurs 
     within the periods described in clause (A);
       ``(C) does not include expenditures for recreational 
     activities or entertainment other than that provided to all 
     attendees as an integral part of the event; and
       ``(D) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of 
     either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or 
     employee, subject to a determination signed by the Member or 
     officer (or in the case of an employee, the Member or officer 
     under whose direct supervision the officer or employee works) 
     that the attendance of the spouse or child is appropriate to 
     assist in the representation of the House of Representatives.
       ``(5) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make 
     available to the public all advance authorizations and 
     disclosures of reimbursement filed pursuant to subparagraph 
     (1) as soon as possible after they are received.''.

     SEC.   . LIMITATION ON ROYALTY INCOME.

       (a) Limitation.--Clause 3 of rule XLVII of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(g) In calendar year 1995 or thereafter, a Member, 
     officer, or employee of the House may not--
       ``(1) receive any copyright royalties for any work--
       ``(A) unless the royalty is received from an established 
     publisher pursuant to usual and customary contractual terms;
       ``(B) unless the total amount of such royalties for that 
     work does not exceed one-third of that individual's annual 
     pay as a Member, officer, or employee for the year in which 
     the contract is entered into; and
       ``(C) without the prior notification and approval of the 
     contract for that work by the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct; or
       ``(2) receive any advance payment for any such work.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 3(e)(5) of rule XLVII of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(5) copyright royalties.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this resolution 
     shall apply only to copyright royalties received by any 
     Member, officer, or employee of the House after adoption of 
     this resolution pursuant to any contract entered into while 
     that individual is such a Member, officer, or employee.
                              {time}  1610

  Mr. SPRATT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, the point I want to make is that this is a question on the 
gift ban and on the book royalty at this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just 
say to the gentleman, we have just been handed a 20-page document here. 
This is the motion to recommit?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this is the motion to commit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. To commit?
  Mr. BONIOR. If the gentleman will yield further, yes. This is what we 
were talking about for the last hour, the ban on gifts from lobbyists 
and book royalties.
  [[Page H22]] Mr. SOLOMON. I do not know how that, with no debate, Mr. 
Speaker, we are going to have time to even know the details of this.
  I would urge a no vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
the gentleman makes a good point about debate. Would the gentleman 
agree to unanimous consent for about 20 minutes to debate this? Then we 
can discuss it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would move regular order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent 
request. What happened to my unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object----
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there is a unanimous-consent request to 
dispense with the reading of the 20-page motion.
  The SPEAKER. That is the pending request. There can only be one 
request pending at a time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is 
apparent to me that, as one who has been here for several years and has 
seen what has gone on in past first days of the Congress, I attempted 
and my staff attempted, beginning back in December, to get a copy of 
the proposed new House rules for this Congress. We have not been able 
to.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I am reserving the right to object.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman may not reserve the right to object if 
regular order is requested.
  Is there objection to the request to dispense with the reading?
  Does the gentleman still tender his request?
  Mr. SPRATT. What I seek, Mr. Speaker, is that we dispense with the 
reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER. The Member was not on his feet, and it was not timely.
  The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. The Members are reminded that this is a 15-minute vote, 
with a maximum of 2 additional minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, 
nays 235, not voting 3, as follows:
                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chrysler
     Gingrich
     Norwood
                              {time}  1626

  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 181, not voting 2, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--251

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     [[Page H23]] Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
       

                              {time}  1643

  Messrs. ORTIZ, FATTAH, and SKELTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________