[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H133-H139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLICAN REFORMS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a couple of observations
this morning. Much has been said on the other side of the aisle about
the fact that the Democrat Party was unable to offer amendments to the
rules changes that were offered yesterday. That was true, but the truth
is in the 200-year history of this Congress, when the opening day
activities begin, the majority party submits a rules package to the
Congress for their approval and there has never been any opportunity to
amend that opening day document.
We this year, because we had campaigned for years and years in the
minority to open up this House to openness and fairness, and
accountability, had proposed a number of major changes to the rules of
the House. What we did is we took the old rules of the 103d Congress
which had been proposed year in and year out by the Democratic Party,
and we brought those rules to the floor with certain changes. And there
were eight significant changes that we wanted to make. They were
reforms that the American people have been asking for this Congress to
enact for many, many years, because we had failed to enact those
reforms, this Congress had dropped in esteem in the eyes of the
American people to something like 20 percent. And that is embarrassing
to a Member like me that holds this body in the greatest esteem.
So we offered these changes, and we also offered, every Member, not
just Democrats but Republicans and Democrats alike, the opportunity to
vote on each one of those changes that we were going to make from the
rules that we had been operating under the Democrat leadership all of
those years. They were changes like reducing the committees and
subcommittee reorganization, and staffs. We eliminated three full
committees. We eliminated more than 20 subcommittees and that resulted
in reducing this congressional bureaucracy by more than 600 jobs.
Why is that significant? We never like to put people out of work. But
the truth is over the last several decades this Congress had just grown
and grown and grown. The number of committees and subcommittees and
staff had proliferated to a point that this is where gridlock really
existed. A lot of press and the media used to say that gridlock was
caused between Democrats and Republicans, because we Republicans
controlled the White House and the Democrats controlled both bodies of
this Congress.
That was not entirely true, and it became evident when the Democrats
won control of the White House and President Clinton was elected. And
then that was supposed to end all gridlock, but lo and behold, gridlock
continued. So it was not Republicans and Democrats.
So then the media blamed it on conservatives and liberals. What it
boiled down to it was not Republicans and Democrats, it was not
liberals and conservatives, it was the bureaucracy of this Congress.
One good example of this is when President Clinton offered up last
year his health care reform package, and lo and behold, that package
was sent to three different committees in this Congress, referred
jointly to three different committees and dozens and dozens of
subcommittees.
What did that mean. That meant that bill was dead on arrival because
of all of the little fiefdoms that had to begin to look at that piece
of legislation.
We in this rules package yesterday made one great significant change
to that and the Speaker of this House now is going to take any piece of
legislation that comes before this body, if it is offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] or the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], it is going to be assigned to one primary
committee. That can be the Committee on Commerce, it could be the
Committee on Rules, which I am the chairman of, but it will go to one
primary committee. If there is another jurisdiction involved such as
maybe a tax significance of some kind, then the Committee on Commerce
will send that little portion over to Ways and Means with instructions
to act on it and get it back. But it means that this bureaucracy, this
gridlock is going to be broken because we have shrunk the size of this
Congress. And incidentally, we are not through doing it yet; we are
going to continue.
{time} 1050
But we also have set the example for what we intend to do to this
Federal Government. There was an election back on November 8, and I am
going to tell you that election really surprised this Member of
Congress. I have been here suffering in the minority for 16 years, and
I never in this world thought that I, Jerry Solomon, would
[[Page H134]] ever become chairman of the Committee on Rules in this
House. Because the Rules Committees are controlled by the majority
party, and because the Democrats have had such a wide majority of
Members, I just thought that was impossible.
But the truth of the matter is the American people spoke, and they
spoke very loudly, and we elected Republicans across this Nation in
places we never ever thought that they would serve, and now we
Republicans have that majority. We are going to use the example of
shrinking this Congress by the three committees and dozens of
subcommittees and eliminating 600-plus jobs. We are going to send the
example that that is what we want to do to the Federal Government as
well. We want to carry on the second part of the Reagan revolution that
ended in 1983.
You know, Ronald Reagan came in here in 1981, and we were able to
push through the Reagan program, which really began to tighten the
belts of the Federal Government. We dealt with entitlements, and in
doing so, and all of those that voted for all of those tough medicine
cuts, we had to go back and face the electorate 2 years later in the
Reagan administration's term. Lo and behold, we lost an awful lot of
Republicans, because all of the special interest groups went after
them. ``You cut my entitlement program. I am not voting for you.''
We lost a lot of good conservative Democrats, because they voted with
us, too, because it was a coalition of Republicans and conservative
Democrats that ran through the first 2 years of the Reagan programs,
and we began to turn this country around.
After the election in 1982, after 2 years of Ronald Reagan, we no
longer had that kind of coalition. We no longer had 192 Republicans to
go with about 40 good conservative Democrats, because we now were down
to about 173 Republicans. We lost about 20 of those conservative
Democrats.
So now Ronald Reagan could no longer have the votes on the floor of
these two bodies to carry out his revolution. So he had to become a
compromise President.
You might keep this in mind, because Bill Clinton is going to have to
make this decision very shortly. Ronald Reagan had to decide whether he
was going to become the veto king or become a compromiser. He chose the
latter. He wanted to accomplish what he could with this vision and the
vision of those who supported him.
As a result of that, he became less effective. He was tremendously
effective in 1981 and 1982. In 1983 and 1984 he had to be a
compromiser. He only got a little bit of what he wanted. Then there was
another election. He lost more of the conservative philosophy, and he
had to compromise at even higher levels. This carried right on through
into 1988 when George Bush was elected and, of course, by that time we
had dropped in numbers to the point where really the Reagan revolution
had stopped.
What I was getting at in the beginning was this revolution now has
started all over again. The American people have spoken, because they
want this Congress and this White House to shrink the size of the
Federal Government and shrink the size of the power of the Federal
Government and grow the private sector, because that is what this
country is all about.
We never were intended when we formed this Republic of States into a
U.S. Government, we never intended for this to be a big Government that
was going to rule the lives of the American people. This Republic of
States was formed for the specific purpose of providing a common
defense for the States of this Nation.
Lo and behold, now we have gotten into all of these other myriad of
programs.
We are going to change all of that. We are going to restructure this
Government. We are going to shrink the size of it. We are going to give
the power back to the States and back to the American people.
Now, having said all of that, I just wanted to point out to the
Members what is going to be happening in the next several weeks on the
floor, because Speaker Gingrich, as you know, has put out the word that
we are going to be a working Congress for this 100 days, and that we
are expected to be in Washington working 5 days a week during the
months of January, February, and March.
Well, some people yesterday were questioning why
we do not have legislation on the floor today, for instance, and
Friday and next Monday and Tuesday. Well, again, I just want to point
out that I was the ranking Republican serving in the minority on the
Committee on Rules, and for years and years we saw the fact that
minority rights were waived and that Members really did not have the
opportunity to participate in the debate on this floor, offering
amendments, and never had the chance to really read legislation.
I would point out what happened. You know, in the days of a man named
Tip O'Neill, he was a tough partisan Democrat who sat in that chair
right there. Although he was tough and he was partisan, he was one of
the fairest Speakers that we have ever had. He was willing to bring
legislation to this floor and let the House work its will. He did not
discriminate against his own conservative Democrats even though he was
a liberal, and he allowed them to offer amendments. Only 15 percent of
the rules that brought legislation to this floor were brought here in a
restricted manner. They were open rules.
There was much talk yesterday that we had closed rules that brought
legislation to the floor. The truth is there were no rules at all. We
do not have a Committee on Rules. The truth is we do not have any rules
at all. Our Committee on Rules, which I am the chairman of, will not
even organize until this afternoon at 2 o'clock, and from that point
on, I have been instructed by our new Speaker Gingrich that we will be
as open and fair and as accountable to the American people and to this
Congress and to all Members of the Congress regardless of political or
philosophical persuasion. He has instructed me to try to have open
rules and fair rules be the norm of this Congress.
We are going to go back to the days of Tip O'Neill when we had free
and unfettered debate on this floor for the most part. That does not
mean that every rule is going to be open, that every rule is not going
to be restricted. Because there are times when we are dealing with
national security, when we are going to debate the national defense
budget which the chairman up there sits on the committee. We are going
to have to have a structured rule. We will have to have limited
debates. But we will make sure the liberals and the conservatives both
have their amendments in order so that we can have a reasonable debate.
There are times when we will be debating intelligence matters that
might affect the national security of this country, and we might have
to have structured, restricted rules in those cases. There are other
cases when we will be dealing with the U.S. Tax Code. That is something
that is extremely complex, and you cannot bring bills on the floor and
just have unfettered debate and amendments offered on any part of that
Code. It would be a disaster.
When we develop budgets over a 2-year period, you have to be able to
depend on the revenues that are coming in in that 2-year period. There
are times when we will not have open and free, unfettered debate. We
will have negotiations with the minority, and I can assure you I am
going to follow Speaker Gingrich's suggestions that the open rule be
the norm. When I go to the organizational meeting this afternoon, I
will be instructing the other members of the committee to do just that.
In regard to minority rights, there is a chart next to me, and this
is why I took the well today, to talk about how legislation will come
to this floor. The truth of the matter is that under the rules of the
House that we adopted yesterday which provide for openness and
fairness, and I key in on fairness and accountability, in being fair,
we want to be fair to the minority as well. I know what it was like to
be persecuted in the minority.
The truth of the matter is when a piece of legislation, any one of
these pieces of legislation that were in our 100-days contract, when
they were introduced yesterday, they were assigned to committees.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act will be brought to the floor. It is a
balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution
[[Page H135]] and a line-item veto giving the President a tool to
eliminate wasteful spending.
We are setting hearings. And, Mr. Speaker, I am including at this
point in the Record the January tentative committee activity for
hearings on the 100-days contract.
January: Tentative Committee Activity
Thursday, 1/5/95
W&M--Hearing: Contract Overview.
Friday, 1/6/95
SCI--Hearing: Sci & Tech in Govt., Sec. Brown.
Monday, 1/9/95
JUD--Hearing: Balanced Budget (or 1/10).
W&M--Hearing: Social Security.
Tuesday, 1/10/95
BUD--Joint Hearing: Dyn v. Stat Scoring.
GOV--Markup: Unfunded Mandate.
RUL--Markup: Unfun. Mandate (or 1/11).
W&M--Hearing: Contract Overview.
Wednesday, 1/11/95
ECOP--Hearing: Role of Gov't in Education & Wkplace Policy
(or 1/12).
W&M--Hearing: Contract Overview.
Thursday, 1/12/95
INR--Hearing: Int'l Sit. & Clinton For. Pol., Fmr. Sec.
State Baker.
RUL--Rule: Unfun. Mandate (or 1/13).
W&M--Hearing: Contract Overview.
Friday, 1/13/95
W&M--Hearing: Welfare Reform.
Monday, 1/16/95
JUD--Hearing (wk of): Term Limits, Legal Reform.
SCI--Hearing (wk of): Risk Assessment.
SCI--Markup (wk of): Hydrogen Research Bill.
SMB--Hearing (wk of): Sm. Bus. Tax Issues.
Tuesday, 1/17/95
NATS--Briefing: Classified Threat (or 1/18).
RUL--Rule: Balanced Budget (or 1/18).
W&M--Hearing: Contract Family Provisions.
Wednesday, 1/18/95
GOV--Hearing: Line-Item Veto.
ECOP--Hearing: Welfare Reform.
W&M--Hearing: Contract Family Provisions.
Thursday, 1/19/95
INR--Hearing: Kirkpatrick & Brzezinski.
W&M--Hearing: Contract Family Provisions.
Balanced Budget Floor Vote.
Friday, 1/20/95
W&M--Hm. Res. Hrng: Welfare Reform.
W&M--Oversight Hrng.
Monday, 1/23/95
AGR--Hearing (wk of): Food Stamp Reform.
SMB--Hearing (wk of): Regulatory Reform.
W&M--Hm. Res. Hrng: Welfare Reform.
W&M--Oversight Hrng.
Tuesday, 1/24/95
W&M--Hearing: Contract Savings & Invest. Provisions.
Wednesday, 1/25/95
GOV--Markup: Line-Item Veto.
W&M--Hearing: Contract Savings & Invest. Provisions.
Thursday, 1/26/95
W&M--Hearing: Contract Savings & Invest. Provisions.
Friday, 1/27/95
W&M--Oversight Hrng.
Monday, 1/30/95
RUL--Rule (wk of): Line-Item Veto.
W&M--Hm. Res. Hrng: Welfare Reform.
W&M--Trade Hrng: Customs Oversight.
Tuesday, 1/31/95
W&M--Hearing: Contract Savings & Invest. Provisions.
committees
AGR: Agriculture
APP: Appropriations
BNK: Banking
COM: Commerce
ECOP: Econ. Opportunity
GOV: Gov Ref & Oversight
HOV: House Oversight
INR: Int'l Relations
JUD: Judiciary
NATS: National Security
PLR: Pub Lands & Rsrces
RUL: Rules
SMB: Small Business
STN: Stand. Off. Conduct
SCI: Science
TRN: Trans & Infrastruct.
VET: Vetrans' Affairs
W&M: Ways & Means.
And I would point to the chart here which shows what happens to a
piece of legislation if there is a balanced-budget amendment, and that
has now been sent to, as primary jurisdiction, the Committee on the
Judiciary. When that Committee on the Judiciary finishes its hearings
and when it marks up the balanced-budget amendment and when it is
finished, it will send that bill to the Committee on Rules.
Now, in the meantime, let us say it happens today, on Thursday, the
committee offers the bill reported and views are requested.
{time} 1100
That means that for Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, the next 3
legislative days, that that bill is available for the minority to file
their views, and they have the opportunity then to read that
legislation. They have the opportunity to discuss with other Members
who do not serve on the Committee on the Judiciary what they might want
in those views. We have to wait 3 days. That takes us from today
through next Tuesday just for the filing of those minority views. Then
the committee files the report with this body right here, with the
Clerk, and that is on Wednesday. Then Thursday, and this is already
next Thursday, a week from now, there are 3 days for every single
Member of this body to see that piece of legislation and to be able to
review it.
Then the bill comes to the Committee on Rules upstairs, where we will
meet, and we will then put out a rule which would allow whatever
amendments are going to be allowed, whatever substitutes or
alternatives. Then the bill will finally be able to come to this floor
on the 10th day, on Wednesday.
So that is why you do not see legislation on the floor here today on
these issues because we do intend in the new majority to honor the
rights of the minority, and I am going to see to it with every bit of
persuasion that I possess that we honor these rights for Members to be
able to know what they are voting on, to be able to have that right, to
vote and to offer amendments on the floor of this House.
Having said that, if I might, I would ask that my report on the issue
of restrictive rules, which we compiled during the 103d Congress be put
in the Record. This does show that during the 103d Congress, 73 rules
that came to this floor, of that number, 70 percent of them were
restricted or closed rules. Now, that is 70 percent. We are going to
try to turn that around.
I am going to say to you now, today, we are shooting to have 70
percent of those rules open so that as the minority and even the
majority Members over here will have the right to work their will on
the floor of this Congress.
I ask that that be put into the Record.
The document referred to is as follows:
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)..... 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)..... 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)..... 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)..... 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)..... 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88).... 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90).... 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)..... 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)..... 104 31 30 73 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported
from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration
of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive
points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged
are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane
amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with
the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules
as a percent of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments
which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified
closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing
for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the
Whole. The parenthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a
percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-
102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 103d
Cong., through Oct. 7, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
[[Page H136]]
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce 3 (D-2; R-1).... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).
Restructuring.
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994.... MO H.R. 6: Improving America's NA.............. NA........................ A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).
Schools.
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 218: Budget 14 (D-5; R-9)... 5 (D-3; R-2).............. A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).
Resolution FY 1995-99.
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 4092: Violent Crime 180 (D-98; R-82) 68 (D-47; R-21)........... A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).
Control.
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994.... MO H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act.. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994.... O H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act..... N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994...... C H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons 7 (D-5; R-2).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).
Ban Act.
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994...... O H.R. 2442: EDA N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).
Reauthorization.
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994..... MO H.R. 518: California Desert N/A............. N/A....................... PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,
Protection. 1994).
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994..... O H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).
Act.
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994..... MO H.R. 2108: Black Lung 4 (D-1; R-3).... N/A....................... A: VV (May 19, 1994).
Benefits Act.
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994..... MO H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY 173 (D-115; R- .......................... A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).
1995. 58).
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994..... MO H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY ................ 100 (D-80; R-20).......... A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).
1995.
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994..... MC H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System 16 (D-10; R-6).. 5 (D-5; R-0).............. A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).
Designation.
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994..... MC H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps, 39 (D-11; R-28). 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,
FY 1995. 1994).
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994..... MC H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp, 43 (D-10; R-33). 12 (D-8; R-4)............. A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).
FY 1995.
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994..... O H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal N/A............. N/A....................... A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).
Approps 1995.
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994.... MC H.R. 4600: Expedited N/A............. N/A....................... PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July
Rescissions Act. 14, 1994).
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994.... MO H.R. 4299: Intelligence N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).
Auth., FY 1995.
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).
of 1994.
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994.... O H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).
Ins.
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994.... O H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).
Dev. Act.
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994.... O H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).
of 1994.
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994.... MC H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act 3 (D-2; R-1).... 3 (D-2; R-1).............. PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July
of 1994. 21, 1994).
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994.... O H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).
Act.
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994.... O S. 208: NPS Concession Policy N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994.... MC H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth & 10 (D-5; R-5)... 6 (D-4; R-2).............. PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29,
Amdmts. Act. 1994).
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994..... MO H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin. N/A............. N/A....................... A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).
Reauth..
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994..... O S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).
Bands.
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994..... O H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).
Potawatomi.
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994..... O H.R. 4217: Federal Crop N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).
Insurance.
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994..... MC H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).
China Policy.
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).
Control Act.
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 4907: Full Budget N/A............. N/A....................... A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).
Disclosure Act.
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 4822: Cong. 33 (D-16; R-17). 16 (D-10; R-6)............ PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.
Accountability. 10, 1994).
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994.... O H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).
Research Act.
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994.... MC H.R. 3433: Presidio 12 (D-2; R-10).. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).
Management.
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994... O H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994... O H.R. 4422: Coast Guard N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).
Authorization.
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994... MC H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest 16 (D-5; R-11).. 9 (D-3; R-6).............. PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994... O H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act.... N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994... O H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).
Banking.
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994... O H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).
Reorganization.
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994... MO H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste 22 (D-15; R-7).. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).
Control.
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994... O H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act.. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).
H. Res. 562, Oct. 3, 1994..... MO H.R. 5044: Amer. Heritage N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Oct. 5, 1994).
Areas.
H. Res. 563, Oct. 4, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 301: SoC Re: N/A............. N/A....................... F: 83-339 (Oct. 5, 1994).
Entitlements.
H. Res. 565, Oct. 4, 1994..... MC S. 455: Payments in Lieu of N/A............. N/A....................... A: 384-28 (Oct. 6, 1994).
Taxes.
H. Res. 570, Oct. 5, 1994..... MC H. J. Res. 416: U.S. in Haiti N/A............. N/A....................... A: 241-182 (Oct. 6, 1994).
H. Res. 576, Oct. 6, 1994..... C H.R. 5231: Presidio N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Oct. 7, 1994).
Management.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this
opportunity to me.
I just want to make a comment with regard to the closed rules. I have
sat in this Chamber day after day, as the gentleman from New York has,
and I have great respect for my colleague. I have listened to his
personal opposition to closed rules and the opposition of other
[[Page H137]] Republicans on the issue of closed rules. I just would
like to take a second to lift some quotes here. Here is one by
Representative Dreier, ``Each time a closed rule is foisted on the
House, Members of Congress are denied the opportunity to represent
their constituents.''
A quote from the Honorable Mr. Solomon: ``The people are sick and
tired of political gamesmanship. They want back into their own House.
They want it open and democratic and not closed and dictatorial.''
Representative Pryce: ``With every closed rule, millions of voters
are disenfranchised when their duly elected Representatives are
prevented from offering relevant amendments to bills that we
consider.''
These are all quotes from the last session of the Congress. The
gentleman has also commented that in fact part of what occurred here is
the American public wanted to see change, wanted to see the process
open, and wanted to see reform. I agree with the gentleman. I think we
made so many strides in the last Congress to deal with reform in
passing the Accountability Act. We passed it again last night. But I
would just say this to you, that yesterday, something that really
happened on the floor probably is a first in the House; there were two
closed rules, two gag rules offered on the first day.
The second of the closed rules was hidden within the closed rule, so
it was a closed rule inside a closed rule.
Now, the point is that if you want to have change, you cannot be
talking in two directions and saying that the Democrats did it a year
ago, therefore, ``We have a right to do it now.'' The issue is if you
truly believe that the process should be open. We had a historic
opportunity yesterday on the floor of this House to demonstrate two
things: openness of this process. There should have been an opportunity
for Democrats to amend the Accountability Act and to deal with a vote
on a gift ban and that we should have taken this very historic day and
turned it into that opportunity to say to the American people that in
fact we have changed, we have reformed this body, this institution; we
opened up the process and people can amend and debate on this floor and
we have separated ourselves from the special interests who have an
overwhelming effect in this body and who have a direct effect on
legislation.
On both of these instances, the opportunity was missed. I say that
more in sorrow than I do in outrage or anger because I think that the
public is demanding reform, an opportunity to do so, but you cannot say
it and then not do it. And it is not good enough to say, ``You did it;
therefore, it is now our opportunity to do it.'' We cannot have that on
the floor of this House.
Mr. SOLOMON. What the gentlewoman says makes a lot of sense. I am
going to throw out a challenge to the gentlewoman because we probably
will adjourn this first of the session of the 104th Congress,
hopefully, sometime in October, although in an off year, and a coming
presidential year, we could be here until December. I say to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer], that I hope that does not happen.
But I want to throw out a challenge to the gentlewoman. I want her to
judge us by our overall performance, and particularly I want the
gentlewoman to hold me accountable. I want the gentlewoman to sit down
here with me on the floor of this Congress in October or November, and
let us see how open these rules were. Let us judge it at that time. I
am going to pledge to the gentlewoman to try to turn this around;
instead of having 70 percent closed rules and restricted rules, we are
going to have 70 percent open and unrestricted rules, if we possibly
can.
So let us judge our performance then, in October or thereabouts.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would be happy to cooperate with my colleague. I also
believe it is one thing for me to hold anyone accountable, but we are
all accountable to the American public. That is what is at issue. That
is what happens on the floor of this House. It is the people who send
us here who hold us accountable for our openness, our sincerity, or
compassion, our actions, for the opportunity to do the things that they
send us here to do on their behalf and to raise their standard of
living, to separate out the special interests in this body. Ultimately,
they will be the deciders. But I am happy to accept the gentleman's
challenge.
Mr. SOLOMON. I look forward to it.
Mr. Speaker, let me yield to a very important member of the Committee
on Rules, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], from Carmel, CA,
who was the cochairman of the congressional task force appointed by the
Speaker to reform this House and who had more input into the
legislation we adopted yesterday than any other Member I know.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this
opportunity to me. I would like to simply rise in strong support of the
case that the gentleman has been making.
Quite frankly, having just entered the Chamber, I would like to
associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Connecticut, Ms.
DeLauro, who has just talked about the need for accountability,
compassion, concern, responding to the wishes of the American people.
That is exactly what happened right here just a few hours ago before we
adjourned the first day of the 104th Congress, by creating the kind of
openness that my friend said is absolutely essential if we are going to
effectively do our job.
It seems to me, as we look at the challenges ahead over the next 99
days, we are going to easily tackle every one of these problems. But we
have to do it. We have to do it not only because we stood on the steps
of the Capitol on September 27 and signed that contract, letting the
American people know we would bring to the floor in the first 100 days
those 10 pieces of legislation, but because so many of them are the
right thing to do.
We are not simply putting into place legislation which was
structured, as many in the media have said, based on public opinion
polls. These are the kinds of things that we on this side of the aisle
have been trying for years and, in many cases, decades, to bring to the
floor of the Congress.
Now, I think the point that the chairman of the Committee on Rules is
making is that we are in a position where we have been denied the
opportunity to even have a hearing on so many of these measures. That
is what we are planning to do. We want to create a fair and an open
process here, which unfortunately, the pattern of leadership that we
have seen at least over the last decade and a half, the last 15 years,
has been such that we have unfortunately not been able to have the
kind of openness we would like.
I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules
for his special order, and I want to thank him.
Mr. SOLOMON. Let me first of all just say to the gentleman that we
really appreciate all the work that he did, the work he did
particularly on realignment of the committee jurisdictions and reducing
the size of the committees and subcommittees. That has really helped to
make this a functioning body in the next 2 years. I know that the
gentleman has not finished yet.
Mr. DREIER. That is just what I was going to say.
Mr. SOLOMON. I know the gentleman has not finished it yet.
Mr. DREIER. That is exactly what I was going to say. There are many
people who would like to believe that January 4th ended the process of
political and congressional reform. Nothing could be further from the
truth because we plan to continue.
My friend knows we passed a resolution in the Republican conference
which calls for further review of the reforms that have been
implemented. What we plan to do is to continue this process because we
cannot reverse 40 years of one-party control and what existed here
overnight.
So I thank my friend and appreciate his remarks.
{time} 1110
Mr. SOLOMON. I am going to pile some burden on the gentleman's
shoulders because at 2 o'clock this afternoon I will appoint him as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules, revamping the rules of this
House and the committee structures. The gentleman is going to have his
work cut out for him, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I say to my
chairman, ``I'd like to think I'm ready, willing, and able.''
[[Page H138]] Mr. SOLOMON. I say to the gentleman, ``You are.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], my
good friend.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] for his attitude as far as openness of the House, as
far as the future, and closed rules and open rules.
I have a little question I would like to ask of the gentleman:
In the past, whenever there has been an opportunity for legislation
that is very controversial, and there is a question of trying to limit
the amount and numbers of amendments--because in the past, as the
gentleman realizes and I know from history--we have both been here--
that when we had such legislation in the past, we sometimes see 200 or
250 amendments in 2 weeks, and some of them are just, as the gentleman
knows as well as I----
Mr. SOLOMON. The California Desert Act?
Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, and others.
And so I recognize, and I think the gentleman recognizes, that there
are opportunities and times when there would be restrictions on
amendments. Now at other times there may not be that restriction, but
sometimes there are both the sponsors of the legislation, the committee
chairman and others, that have worked on that legislation, and other
Members would like to have some idea of what amendments are going to be
brought up. With a strictly open rule and nothing said, there is no
opportunity. I can bring an amendment up here on the floor, blindside
somebody on it as long as it is germane and it is in order. At times
there have been provisions that the chairmen of the Committee on Rules
have said, ``You're going to have to have them in the Congressional
Record within a certain length of time, or by a certain date, or by a
certain hour of a certain date.''
Does the gentleman plan to use that type of restriction on
amendments?
Mr. SOLOMON. Excuse me. I walked over on this side. I just wanted to
show the gentleman we are cooperating.
Mr. VOLKMER. Right.
Mr. SOLOMON. We want to look out for the rights----
Mr. VOLKMER. Well, I would much rather have 70 percent open rules
than 70 percent closed rules. I have always said that. I agree with the
gentleman that Members, all Members, have been sent here to be able to
participate in the debate on the legislation, offer amendments, and
have their ideas expressed also.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is absolutely right. The gentleman makes
some sense, too, and, as I told the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] who is the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
and now the ranking minority member, that when the defense budget comes
before the Committee on Rules, we want to be able to sit down with him
because we cannot bring that bill to the floor under an open debate. We
would be here for 3 months debating just that one bill.
Mr. VOLKMER. Right.
Mr. SOLOMON. And what we will do, we will negotiate with the
minority, we will make sure if someone has an issue such as SDI; for
instance, the Strategic Defense Initiative. We cannot allow 50
amendments on the Strategic Defense Initiative, but what we will do is
we will allow a liberal's point of view, we will allow a conservative,
and maybe a moderate. In other words, we will have three amendments
dealing with that issue.
One thing we will eliminate is this business of king of the hill, and
that is something, as the gentleman knows--the gentleman, I think,
shares my view--that there is no place in this body for a king-of-the-
hill procedure. What a king-of-the-hill procedure is is that one
amendment might pass with 280 votes, and then another amendment will
follow right behind it, wipe that out, and only get 218 votes, and the
one with the fewer votes wins. Well, no more of that. I have spoken to
Speaker Gingrich about that. We are going to try to do away with this
king-of-the-hill procedure, and we are going to let the best man win,
or the best amendment win, or the best alternative win. The one with
the most votes will win. That is how it should be.
There might come a time when we want to allow the printing of the
amendments in the Congressional Record prior to debate. We might even
go so far as to have those amendments numbered so they will be easier
to identify. I know the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is a very
diligent Member of this House, and he reads the amendments, and
sometimes it is hard to follow which amendment is being called up at
certain times. One Member may have 10 amendments resting at the desk,
and he calls up an amendment, and we do not know what it is, what the
text is. So, if we number those amendments, it will make a lot more
sense.
So, there will be times on complex issues when we will do that.
Otherwise we will try to bring bills to the floor under an open rule
process and let the Members offer amendments as they see fit right from
the floor.
Mr. VOLKMER. The last comment I would like to make to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is that I could understand in the
resolution that we had yesterday, as far as the actual rules changes,
and I could understand the provision there for closed rules. We have
always had that. We have never had anything, as long as I have been
here, any different. So, I am not objecting to that.
But I do have a strong disappointment, a very strong disappointment,
in the majority in requiring a closed rule.
I know the gentleman did not have a Committee on Rules, but I could
read, too, the gentleman from New York, in here the provision in regard
to what we call the compliance legislation, and what I am saddened by
is that that bill, which is a good bill, has overwhelming support, we
all supported it last year, and it went to the Senate and died, so it
still has not become law. I listened to the speeches here this morning,
some of the 1-minutes saying that we have now placed the House under
all the laws of the United States that affect all private business and
industry.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, ``We haven't done that yet,
Jerry. You know that, and I know that, and until it passes the Senate,
comes out of conference, goes to the President and is signed, we
haven't done anything.''
We passed it. We did that last year. It does not do anything until it
becomes law.
Mr. SOLOMON. That is right.
Mr. VOLKMER. All right. So let us tell the American people we still
got a ways to go.
But my problem is what was done yesterday on that bill is that we in
the minority, we in the minority, will never, never have an opportunity
to change one word in that law, not one word.
Now that is not part of the rule; that is legislation. We should have
been given an opportunity to offer amendments to that legislation.
Mr. SOLOMON. Well, I understand.
Mr. VOLKMER. I am very disappointed.
Mr. SOLOMON. I understand the gentleman's logic, and I share that
view to a certain extent, and, as a matter of fact, I even spoke on the
fact that I did not want to see the accountability bill, if it were
going to be changed in any way, come to this floor under a closed rule.
There was talk, as the gentleman knows. There were negotiations going
on, both Democrats and Republicans negotiating with the Senate, to put
together the differences and to bring the accountability bill, revised
with the Senate concerns, with Democrat concerns, into the bill and
bring it onto the floor yesterday under a closed rule with no
amendments. I objected to that. As a matter of fact, I refused to let
that happen because there then would not have been a bill that was
debated on this floor, was amended on this floor, and passed
overwhelmingly with, I think, only four votes in opposition. I said,
``If you want to bring this bill on the floor tomorrow, you will bring
the exact bill we had that we spent hours debating and that we spent
hours amending and that we sent over to the Senate.''
The reason we brought it up yesterday, and finally they agreed to
bring the same bill that passed this House, not some revised edition
with these negotiations that could not be amended; the reason they
brought that to this floor was so that we would not die, and we were
afraid. As the gentleman knows, we put this off today, that bill could
have languished for another
[[Page H139]] month by the time we get it on this calendar with all
this 100 days business. The chances are it would have been next July or
August, and one never can tell around here what happens. Bills
disappear. They hide. They are never seen again.
We wanted to pass that bill. Seventy-three new Republicans, all of
them, wanted that bill acted on yesterday. They wanted to have it done.
We sent that bill over again to the Democrats that were working on it.
Mr. Swett, who was a good Member of this body who is no longer here
now, was not here, but other Members were. The gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer] was one, I believe, and, in other words, to get their
impact on the bill. But the truth of the matter is I do not think that
the 13 new Democrats who were not here last year, they did not have a
chance to vote on it.
{time} 1120
I do not think they objected. They all voted for the bill yesterday
afternoon. At any rate, what we have done is, we have now passed that
bill. It will now go to the Senate. The Senate will revise it, as is
their prerogative, and the bill then, if it is different, will either
come back to us for the amendment process or it will go to conference,
one or the other. They could send a Senate bill over here, in which
case we would have a chance to revisit it, and you, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut, will have an opportunity at that time to work your
will on the bill, too.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to echo my comments.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman wish me to yield to
her?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, first, if the gentleman will yield further,
the gentleman is missing a little bit of the point.
I will admit that when it goes into the conference, the Democrats who
are on the conference committee, those few, may have an opportunity to
make some changes in the bill, but, remember, it is only
the bill that passed this House and the bill that passed the Senate
that is going to be in the conference. It was clear to me yesterday,
listening to the debate, that there were other Members who would have
had amendments to that bill. If they had been permitted to offer them,
they would have liked to offer those amendments. They did not get that
opportunity, and they will never get that opportunity in the next 2
years. We will not revisit this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if I may just reclaim my time for 1 minute,
I would have to disagree with the gentleman that they will never get
the opportunity. We are going to try to be as fair as we can, and if
there are other issues, we are going to revisit many of these issues
that we discussed yesterday on the floor.
We heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] say that his
committee and the Committee on Rules are going to mark up additional
bills, and certainly your representatives on the Committee on Rules and
other committees are gong to have an opportunity for input, and we will
revisit the issue, and we will have another day to debate whatever
amendments you wanted to offer.
So I think, on the gentleman's concerns, that he is going to be
presently surprised at the openness when we are going to be able to
revisit many of these issues.
Mr. VOLKMER. You will have another compliance bill?
Mr. SOLOMON. We could very well, yes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Another accountability bill?
Mr. SOLOMON. Yes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my
colleague. That is many respects is what I think was hoped for in terms
of change, particularly by the American public, and as far as the rules
are concerned, I truly believe in the gentleman's objection, because
again, he talks on this floor about open rules all the time. And yet
for the first day, for this opportunity to come up and to pass this
bill, I would just say that it was business as usual, so that we do not
have the opportunity.
I worked personally very, very hard on the accountability legislation
in the last session. My colleague, Dick Swett, did also, and I
complimented my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris
Shays. I think that bill was long overdue.
But there was not an opportunity for the minority to have a debate
and a discussion about it. If we are to change this body, then in fact
you are now in charge. The Republicans have the majority, so that with
bills getting lost, the calendar becomes your calendar in terms of
scheduling. If it is your side that has to say that for the sake of
reform and openness and what we have talked about in this bill, then we
have to have delay. Let the process be opened up so we can have a
debate about a variety of issues.
That is the point I am trying to make, that we cannot portray change
when in fact we are looking at business as usual. And I think we need
to be very mindful and very careful about that as we go down the next
several months.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman sounds just like Jerry
Solomon.
Mr. Speaker, I have got to prepare to organize the Rules Committee.
It is going to be a fair and open and accountable Rules Committee this
year. So I am going to have to close this special order, and I thank
the body for indulging me.
____________________