[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H902-H906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PERMITTING COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN TO SCHEDULE HEARINGS

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 43 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 43

       Resolved, That, in rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, clause 2(g)(3) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) The chairman of each committee of the House (except 
     the Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the 
     date, place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at 
     least one week before the commencement of the hearing. If the 
     chairman of the committee determines that there is good cause 
     to begin the hearing sooner, the chairman shall make the 
     announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement 
     made under this subparagraph shall be promptly published in 
     the Daily Digest and promptly entered into the committee 
     scheduling service of the House Information Systems.''.

                              {time}  1140

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], for the purposes of debate only. All time yielded will be for 
the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 43 amends clause 2(g)(3) of House rule 
11 to restore by rule what has been the standard operating procedure 
around here ever since I can remember, and that is to permit committee 
chairmen to schedule hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this month a question arose as to the literal 
meaning of the rule which states that a committee, I repeat, a 
committee shall call hearings at least a week in advance unless the 
committee for good cause determines that such should be called sooner.
  The Parliamentarian's office confirmed that the term ``committee'' 
means just that. The committee acting collectively.
  As a result of the point of order raised against a particular hearing 
that was overruled by a committee chairman in the committee, the 
Committee on Rules had to recommend to the House a waiver of the rule 
in order to bring a measure to the floor of the House last week.
  Had we not done so, a legitimate point of order could have been 
raised in the House against the consideration of that measure.
  Mr. Speaker, because of this interpretation every committee of this 
House was naturally thrown into a state of uncertainty as to the fate 
of its hearing and its bills. Consequently, the Committee on Rules was 
asked to look into the matter and resolve it as soon as possible.
  Last Monday I introduced House Resolution 43 to substitute the word 
``chairman'' for the word ``committee'' in that rule, as the party 
responsible for calling hearings.
  The Committee on Rules met and reported the resolution on Thursday by 
voice vote with no amendments offered.
  At that time, I was led to believe that was not a controversial issue 
and that everyone agreed there was a need to legally restore what has 
been the standard operating procedure in this House for many, many 
years.
  However, since not all the bases have been touched by the minority in 
order to be safe we reported an open rule, should any subsequent 
concerns or amendments surface.
  Mr. Speaker, in my experience such a special rule has never been 
reported before on a simple rule change such as this which is already 
privileged for House floor consideration without requiring a special 
rule. It was not until after we reported that we received letters from 
some very respected ranking minority Members expressing concern 
[[Page H903]] about the ability of chairmen under the new rule to call 
hearings for good cause with less than a week's notice.
  At the urging of the minority, our report does contain language that 
warns against so-called spur-of-the-moment hearings and advises 
committees to adopt rules requiring consultation and prior notice 
requirements for any hearings scheduled less than a week in advance.
  We had also agreed with our committee minority to conduct a colloquy 
on the floor to emphasize our intent that this should not be used for 
surprise hearings, which is the concern of some.
  However, this was not sufficient assurance for some of the ranking 
minority members on other committees, and I understand that, having 
recently been in the minority myself. Believe me, I understand that.
  Consequently, last Friday we sat down and
   discussed this further with those raising those concerns, and I 
promised to take those concerns and recommendations up with our 
leadership on our side of the aisle. And we were able to reach an 
agreement with all concerned before the House adjourned last Friday.

  As a result, I will offer an amendment developed in cooperation with 
those ranking minority Members who expressed their concerns to me and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] last Friday.
  The amendment requires that if a hearing is set with less than a 
week's notice, it must be for good cause and be agreed to either by the 
chairman and the ranking minority member or be approved by a majority 
vote of the committee, a quorum being present for the transaction of 
that business. I think this will allay concerns that were raised that 
we were somehow laying the groundwork for instantaneous surprise 
hearings without adequate notice or without consultation.
  That was never the intention of this rules change. We simply want to 
restore, by proper legislative language, what has been the standard 
practice for decades in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our distinguished ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], let me simply 
conclude by observing that it is my intention, as the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, to ensure that our House rules are adhered to here 
on the floor of this House and in committee. That includes protecting 
the rights and protecting the prerogatives guaranteed to the minority 
under the rules of this House.
  Yes, this House operates by majority rule. But for that rule to be 
effective and accepted, it must be within the framework of protecting 
and respecting the rights of the minority. When I was named as chairman 
of the Committee on Rules by our Speaker, I promised to be firm and 
fair, and I intend to live up to that. I expressed my intentions to 
conduct our committee's work in as free and open a manner as possible 
and to report rules that would allow the House to operate in that same 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, this House runs best when we are operating in a 
bipartisan spirit of comity--recognizing our political differences--but 
hopefully being able to disagree without being disagreeable.
  Mr. Speaker, both the majority and the minority are finding their way 
under this suddenly reversed role. It is not easy. We will both make 
some mistakes along the way and we will both antagonize the other, 
often without perhaps knowingly doing so.
  I would simply urge that we make an extra effort to try to minimize 
our procedural differences so that we can properly direct our energies 
to engaging each other in a deliberative fashion on our policy 
differences. After all, that is really what we are here to do.
  I think we can do so while recognizing that this House does have an 
obligation to do its work in a timely way without getting bogged down 
in partisan or procedural bickering.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope by offering this compromise amendment to this 
resolution today that I would be setting some small example for both 
sides of the aisle to follow in a new spirit of comity. Let us get on 
with our work and let us get it done.
            rule regarding scheduling of committee hearings

       Current Rule:
       Rule XI, clause 2(g)(3):
       [(3) Each committee of the House (except the Committee on 
     Rules) shall make public announcement of the date, place and 
     subject matter of any committee hearing at least one week 
     before the commencement of the hearing. If the committee 
     determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing 
     sooner, it shall make the announcement at the earliest 
     possible date. Any announcement made under this subparagraph 
     shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest and promptly 
     entered into the committee scheduling service of the House 
     Information Systems.]

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Proposed Change in Rule by H. Res. 43 & Proposed Compromise 
     (compromise in italic):
       (3) The chairman of each committee of the House (except the 
     Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the 
     date, place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at 
     least one week before the commencement of the hearing. [If 
     the chairman of the committee determines that there is good 
     cause to begin the hearing sooner, the chairman shall make 
     the announcement at the earliest possible date.] If the 
     chairman of the committee, with the concurrence of the 
     ranking minority member, determines there is good cause to 
     begin the hearing sooner, or if the committee so determines 
     by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction 
     of business, the chairman shall make the announcement at the 
     earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this 
     subparagraph shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest 
     and promptly entered into the committee scheduling service of 
     the House Information Systems.
       Explanation:
       The existing rule requires that committees call hearings at 
     least a week in advance unless the committees determine there 
     is good cause to schedule them sooner.
       H. Res. 43 as reported permits chairmen to call hearings at 
     least a week in advance unless the chairmen determine there 
     is good cause to hold them sooner.
       The proposed compromise permits chairmen to call hearings a 
     week in advance, and the chairman, with the concurrence of 
     the ranking minority member, or by vote of the committee, to 
     call them sooner for good cause.
                                                                    ____

                                              The Speaker's Rooms,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 10, 1995.
     Hon. Xavier Becerra,
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Becerra and Frank: In your letter of 
     January 6, 1994 you mention that the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, at its organizational meeting held on January 5, 
     adopted the following committee rule IIIa:
       ``The Committee or any subcommittee shall make public 
     announcement of the date, place and subject matter of any 
     hearing to be conducted by it on any measure or matter at 
     least one week before the commencement of that hearing, 
     unless the committee or subcommittee before which such 
     hearing is scheduled determines that there is good cause to 
     begin such hearing at an earlier date, in which event it 
     shall make public announcement at the earliest possible 
     date.''
       As required by clause 2(a)(2) of Rule XI of the rules of 
     the House, this committee rule is consistent with clause 
     2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the rules of the House. I would 
     interpret this rule to require a committee or subcommittee 
     determination, as the case may be, as to when hearings should 
     commence, when that question is raised by a committee member 
     in a timely manner. In my experience, committees and 
     subcommittees have often deferred to their chairmen for the 
     purpose of establishing hearing dates. Where the question is 
     raised in a proper manner, however, I would conclude that the 
     committee or subcommittee as a collegial body must ratify the 
     call and scheduling of hearings. This is to be distinguished 
     from the authority conferred in clause 2(c)(1) of Rule XI for 
     chairmen of committees (and subcommittees) to call and 
     convene additional meetings of their committees for the 
     conduct of committee business.
       Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles W. Johnson.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me half 
of his time. I also wish to thank the gentleman for sitting down with 
me and Mr. Dingell, Mr. Mineta, and Mr. Miller. He listened to our 
concerns and together we came up with an amendment that everyone can 
support
  Mr. Solomon has said all along that he simply wanted to amend the 
standing rule of the House to reflect current practice. The amendment 
now does that.
  In effect, the chair of a committee can announce hearings so long as 
he or she gives 7 days notice.
  To announce a hearing less than 7 days in advance, the committee 
chair must either get the agreement of the ranking minority member or 
get approval by a vote of the committee.
  [[Page H904]] The amendment offered by Mr. Solomon gives other 
committee members some say on waiving 7-days notice. It does not grant 
the chair unilateral authority to announce hearings any sooner.
  Let me clarify one point. Even though the ranking minority members 
argued for this change, it is not a minority rights issue.
  House rules set a minimum notice requirement for hearings but not for 
any other business conducted by committees, not for markups, adoption 
of the rules, or the transaction of any other business.
  The purpose of the notice requirement, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the 
public. The purpose, Mr. Speaker, is openness to let many voices be 
heard.
  It is not to inform the minority but to inform the public so that 
they can be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, in the minority views submitted with the report we 
outlined our concerns.
  We expressed our hope that a bipartisan agreement could be worked 
out. I am thankful that agreement was reached.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his 
willingness to work this out and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment to the resolution
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1150

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by thanking everyone who has cooperated 
in working out this compromise, and especially our ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for bringing us 
together. It is not easy being the person caught in the middle when you 
are being pressed from both sides to do what they say is right, but our 
distinguished ranking minority member has risen to the occasion as an 
honest broker and has served his committee and his party well.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 2, strike 
     ``If'' and all that follows through the period on page 2, 
     line 5 and insert the following: ``If the chairman of the 
     committee, with the concurrence of the ranking minority 
     member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing 
     sooner, or if the committee so determines by majority vote, a 
     quorum being present for the transaction of business, the 
     chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible 
     date.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] in support of his 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment speaks for itself. It is an agreed-upon 
amendment. I do not know of any opposition to it. At the appropriate 
time, if there are no other speakers on the other side of the aisle, I 
would expect to move the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he has 
any requests for time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have requests from the Members who were 
part of the compact we struck last Friday.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member on the Committee 
on Rules for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we take a moment to understand what 
this issue is about and why it matters.
  Under existing House rules there is a requirement that 7-days notice 
be given before a public hearing in a committee. Other kinds of 
meetings of Members of Congress are held around here, but there is no 
specific advance notice requirement on those meetings. Only public 
hearings have an advance notice requirement.
  Why is that?
  Because the public needs the notice if they are going to have any 
real chance to testifying. It takes time to find out what a hearing is 
really about and to decide to testify; it takes time to prepare 
testimony; and it takes time to make arrangements to travel to 
Washington, DC, to testify and to make that trip. Members of Congress 
can go to meetings on short notice--we are here anyway. But if we are 
to give the American public any real chance to participate in the 
crafting of legislation, then we have to give them sufficient notice so 
that they can testify at committee hearings.
  That is why the 7-day-notice requirement is in the House rules--to 
protect the public's ability to know what hearings are going to happen 
and to have a realistic chance of participating in those hearings.
  Under existing rules and practice, that 7-days notice can only be 
waived by a majority vote of the committee, or by agreement of
 both sides of the committee. So there is an ability to waive the 
notice, but only on relatively noncontroversial matters.

  What the resolution now before us was all about was making it very 
easy to waive the 7-day notice requirement. Under the resolution as 
reported--without any hearings--last week by the Rules Committee, any 
full Committee chairman could decide unilaterally to waive the 7-day-
notice requirement. No chairman--not me and not anybody else--should 
have that kind of power to effectively exclude public input on the 
legislation we write here. The potential for abuse would have been too 
great--a chairman could arrange to have only witnesses favorable to his 
or her position, then announce the hearing at the last minute so others 
would be precluded from testifying.
  Fortunately the chairman of the Rules Committee has agreed to an 
amendment to his resolution. That amendment would basically restate 
existing rules and practice, by providing for a 7-day notice to the 
public, and that notice could be waived either by a majority vote of 
the committee or by the agreement of both sides of the committee, as 
represented by the chairman and the ranking minority member.
  This amendment takes us back to existing rules and practice and 
therefore preserves the 7-day-notice requirement and the ability of the 
public to have its views reflected in committee hearings. I commend the 
gentlemen from New York for agreeing to this amendment. Without it we 
would have made it much harder for the views of the public to be heard 
in this House and to be incorporated into the bills we write. That 
would have been a real loss to democracy and to the quality of the 
legislation we produce, because I think it is clear that greater public 
input about the real-world impacts of what we do here only makes our 
product better.
  I wish to thank the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Moakley, and our ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee, Mr. Dingell, 
as well as the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. 
Miller, for their assistance on this issue.
  I therefore support the amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] may I use some of his time if I need it?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I 
thought we had an agreement. We have a heavy schedule today. I did not 
believe we were going to use all the time on either side of the aisle.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, that is why we rushed through with those 
three open rules today, so we could have the extra time on the floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let us consider it as we go along, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], one of the arbiters of this deal that we have 
reached.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for his assistance and hard 
work on this particular matter, and also my good friend, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules. He and 
I have had a great friendship over the years. Although we have had some 
splendid differences which we have argued out 
[[Page H905]] with great vigor, the affection and respect which I hold 
for him knows no bounds. He is a valuable Member of this body, and I 
thank him and salute him for having worked this matter out.
  Mr. Speaker, this started out as potentially a very bad situation. 
The rules of the House have always functioned to provide notice, not 
only to the Members, the minority, but very frankly, to the people, 
because the business that is done here very intimately affects every 
American. The purpose of the notice requirement was to permit people to 
come forward, to be heard on matters of concern on the conduct of their 
Nation's business.
  As it originally started out, the rules change would have virtually 
eliminated the requirement for adequate notice to the American people, 
to the Members of this body, and to the minority. Happily, through the 
wisdom of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and because of the hard work that has 
occurred on the part of a number of Members and staff people, we have 
been able to resolve that difference so now notice is given, 7 days, 
but also that opportunity for waiving that under good, sensible 
practice has been accomplished.
  I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that again, we owe a debt to the 
gentleman from New York for his cooperative and decent approach to the 
concerns we felt. It also is so that we can look now to a situation 
where his concerns with regard to the ability of the business of the 
majority being properly conducted can properly be met under this.
  I think one lesson we can all learn from this is that by working 
together we can resolve the problems that exist between us on this side 
of the aisle and on that side of the aisle, and that we can come 
together to address the concerns we all feel. When we do that, we can 
say that we have solved not only the problems of one side but also the 
other; also, Mr. Speaker, to observe that the result is a good one, 
because here the requirements of notice remain.
  They can be waived upon consultation with the minority. They also can 
be waived on a vote of the committee with a working quorum present, so 
this is a good resolution. It is one which I hope will be an example of 
how the body can and should work together in a fashion to resolve our 
concerns in a bipartisan spirit of comity and cooperation.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I again want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta], who was a tower of strength on this, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], and the other Members on both sides of the 
aisle who have worked together to resolve what could have been a nasty 
problem in a way which does serve the public interest, serves the 
interests of this institution, and sees to it, yet, that people who 
have a concern about legislation will have an opportunity to 
participate in the process by coming from places as far away as 
California and Alaska in time to participate and to have their views 
heard as the Congress works its will on important legislative 
questions.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 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, this is a rules change pending 
before the House today that was worked out and brought to the floor 
over a period of several days. Into this rules change was invested a 
good deal of effort by the Republicans and by the Democrats, but this 
is not a rules change that the public is concerned about.
  When the House of Representatives adopted its rules for the 104th 
Congress, a rules change, which the public is concerned about and that 
had the overwhelming support of Democrats, was conspicuously absent. 
That is a rule to prohibit the taking of gifts by Members of Congress 
from paid lobbyists.


                             point of order

  Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder] rise?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant] is speaking to the motion before the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that debate must be 
confined to the pending resolution.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] may proceed in order.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution ought to 
include language to say that Members of Congress cannot take free meals 
and free vacations and free golf trips from lobbyists that are paid to 
influence the proceedings before this House. That addition to this 
provision could have been brought forward. It ought to be brought 
forward.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order. The gentleman is not talking 
in regard to a germane amendment to the issue before us right now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
the debate must be confined to the subject at hand.
                              {time}  1200


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman will 
state it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I advocate that this amendment 
ought to be defeated unless it includes the language that I have 
suggested with regard to prohibiting Members of Congress from taking 
freebies from lobbyists, would I then not be talking upon the amendment 
at hand?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not relevant to discuss unrelated 
issues as a contingency on this resolution.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would congratulate the 4 days of 
diligence of the Republican Committee on Rules working with the 
Democrats over here in crafting an amendment to the rules and bringing 
it posthaste to the floor that the public is not very concerned about 
and at the same time stifling and prohibiting anyone from talking about 
whether or not Members of Congress should be taking freebies from the 
lobby.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member, for giving me some 
time to speak on this.
  I would like to applaud the gentleman from New York [Mr. Soloman], 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for making this compromise 
available to the entire House. The original language would have allowed 
only a chairman to make a decision to decrease the notice requirement 
and allow committees to meet to have hearings without sufficient notice 
not only to Members of the Congress but also to the public.
  I applaud the chairman in making sure that this compromise was 
reached. This will avoid the circumstances that occurred in my 
committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, wherein the chairman on his 
own initiative decided to reduce the amount of time necessary to give 
notice to not only Members of Congress, as I said, but also to the 
entire public about a very important matter, the balanced budget bill 
that we took up this past week.
  It was unfortunate that at that point, the committee actually 
violated its own rules and actually held hearings without providing 
sufficient notice to people that this would occur. Obviously, it makes 
it difficult for witnesses to be present and for people to prepare, so 
it is great to see that we are finally going to try to bring ourselves 
within the rules of this House.
  I think it is unfortunate while we are amending these rules, however, 
that right now while this window is open, that we do not take advantage 
of doing what I think the gentleman from Texas is trying to express, 
trying to make sure that we also clear up the rules to make sure that 
no one in their House can take freebies from lobbyists or take gifts. 
This is the time to do so. I would think right now a strong amendment--
--

[[Page H906]]

                             point of order

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Chair has ruled on several occasions 
that talking on other matters and rules not included in this rule are 
out of order and the gentleman is insisting on doing so. The gentleman 
is out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The debate must be relevant to the subject 
at hand, as the Chair has ruled earlier.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BECERRA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BECERRA. If a Member takes the floor to speak on the rules of the 
House and we are in the process of amending the rules of the House, is 
it appropriate to discuss the issue of amending rules of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only the rules changes being proposed. That 
is the only item relevant to the debate at this moment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Let me then conclude my remarks by saying that I believe 
this particular rules change is compromise language where we will make 
sure that there is bipartisanship in the conduct of the committees and 
in structuring any notice that might be required for a committee, 
especially if we are going to curtail the amount of time that would be 
out there in terms of notice for the public, I think that is a wise 
move. I appreciate the new majority in this House has realized that it 
is essential. It goes a long way toward satisfying the rules that the 
majority first passed which required sufficient notice and deliberation 
by the entire body of the committee, not just the chairman. I think it 
goes a long way, but I do believe that we should have gone a little 
farther and dealt with the ban on lobbyists' gifts as well.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. 
I think that the amendment is a victory for openness and for full 
participation by all Members in the legislative process. I think that 
it is one of the ways in which we try to gain the trust of the American 
people. I also believe that we cannot go just halfway on that reform. 
The American people are looking to us in fact to reform this House and 
to open it up to their views and to their opinions.
  While this is a good rules change, I think that the public cares 
about some other rules changes, including the whole effort to enact a 
ban on all gifts to Members of the Congress and their staffs. I think 
we have to enact a ban into law to assure the American people that the 
days of perks and privileges are really over. We also need to ban 
Members from using frequent-flier miles for their personal use and that 
ought to be part of a rules change. Every single perk that we allow to 
continue serves only to undermine all the other reforms that we enact 
in this body.
  Reform really is an all-or-nothing proposition. If we do not go all 
the way and ban gifts and other perks, our reform efforts will die the 
death of a thousand cuts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             general leave

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the 
resolution just adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House 
Resolution 47, the special rule for House Resolution 43, be laid on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  

                          ____________________