[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6676-H6681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                       PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 179

       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution it shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
     contrary notwithstanding, to consider in the House a 
     concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of the House 
     and Senate for the Independence Day district work period.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, while adjournment resolutions are ordinarily privileged, 
a point of order could be raised against the July 4th district work 
period resolution on grounds it violates section 309 of the Budget Act 
that requires that the House can not adjourn for more than 3 days in 
July if it has not completed action on all appropriations; and on 
grounds it violates section 310 of the Budget Act that requires the 
same with respect for completing action on a reconciliation bill if one 
is required by the budget resolution adopted by the Congress.
  Despite these strictures in the rules. Mr. Speaker, we are well on 
our way toward completing our appropriations work in timely manner. 
Accordingly, in deference to the people whom we serve here, and to our 
families, to whom we have made commitments over the next week, I 
believe it is appropriate for the House to now adjourn for the 
Independence Day district work period.
  The special rule before us will simply allow us to consider the July 
4th resolution by waiving points of order against it.
  The adjournment resolution itself, Senate Concurrent Resolution 20, 
passed the Senate last night and is now pending at the Speaker's table. 
This rule provides for the immediate consideration of the adjournment 
resolution. Under the precedent, it is not subject to debate and will 
immediately be voted on. I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one big the dog-ate-my-
homework excuse for not getting much done over the last 6 months.
  It doesn't list all the laws and rules Republicans have violated, we 
would be here all night. Instead it rolls all of the excuses into one 
sentence that gets House Republicans off the hook in terms of the many 
and varied promises they have broken this year.
  The Congressional Budget Act says the House cannot go on recess for 
more than 3 days in July until the House has initially considered the 
appropriations bills. Well, we've only finished 2 out of 13 
appropriations bills. Well, we've only finished 2 out of 13 
appropriations bills, and those were 2 of the easier ones. The law 
tells Congress not to take a vacation until its work is done and, with 
this resolution, Republicans are saying they are above the law.
  The reason Congress is not supposed to go on vacation until the 
appropriations bills have gone through the House is because unless the 
House is finished by July 4, we will be unable to avoid a continuing 
resolution on October 1. Because Republicans tied up the House with 
their contract--cutting taxes for the rich at the expense of school 
lunches and Medicare, and refusing to attend to the business at hand--
the Government may very well shut down at the beginning of the fiscal 
year.
  And that's not all. The Congressional Budget Act also requires 
Congress to complete action on any necessary reconciliation legislation 
before going home for the July recess. This year, committees won't 
report until the end of September.
  But not to worry. The Republican majority will just pass this 
resolution and ignore that law too. I can think of a lot of people who 
would love to change a law they wanted to break, but for most Americans 
it doesn't work like that.
  And let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of 
another rule they are breaking today. I quote:

       Whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution 
     providing for the consideration of any measure, it shall, to 
     the maximum extent possible, specify the object of any waiver 
     of a point of order against its consideration.

  But this resolution doesn't specify the object of any waiver at all. 
Instead they put in words like ``to the maximum extent possible'' which 
creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
  For all the reform hoopla on opening day--just 6 months ago--
Republicans have trampled their own rules time and time again. And 
today is no different. Every single day of the week that we are in the 
Committee of the Whole they waive the new requirement that committees 
will not sit during the 5-minute rule. They've waived that rule more 
than a flag on a 4th of July parade.
  The same Republicans who demanded fairness in committee ratios last 
Congress are now skewing them so badly that even we look good.
  Mr. Speaker, with this resolution, House Republicans are handing 
themselves a big get-out-of-jail-free card. They are saying ``we didn't 
do the things we were supposed to do but we want to go on vacation 
anyway.''
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to my colleague from 
Texas, that while some people may consider it a vacation to go home for 
10 days, a number of us consider it a good opportunity to go home and 
talk to the people whom we are here to serve and many of us have town 
meetings scheduled.
  We have opportunities to go home and talk to the people at home about 
the work that we are doing here. And much as I consider it a vacation 
to get out of Washington and return home to Utah, this is not simply 
for convenience of the Members; it is an opportunity to go home and 
continue the work that we have to do representing the people of our 
district.
  I will also say, Mr. Speaker, that I think a lot of people recognize 
at home that having completed a balanced budget resolution for the 
first time in nearly 30 years is completing a great deal of work. We 
are well on our way toward accomplishing the work that is required of 
us in the appropriation process to complete that balanced budget in the 
time prescribed by law.
  Mr. Speaker, we would have had two more bills finished this week, but 
for some unfortunate decisions by some people to try to slow down the 
process. Hopefully, we are past that, Mr. Speaker, and that when we 
come back from work in our districts over the next 10 days, we will 
have an opportunity to let the process move forward expeditiously as it 
is intended to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, is it against the House rules for Members to 
wear buttons while speaking on the floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should not wear badges trying to 
communicate a message while they are addressing the House.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  
[[Page H6677]]

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker not assume that a member 
of the Committee on Rules would know the rules of the House when he 
speaks on the House floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Would the Speaker please advise Members that they are not 
allowed to wear pins or buttons when they are speaking on the House 
floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just so informed the House.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information, because I 
recall my Republican colleagues wearing buttons on the floor of the 
House day in and day out when they were in the minority.
  I gather what was OK when they were in the minority is not OK now 
that we are in the minority. I appreciate the information and I will be 
happy to remove my button. I do recall speaker after speaker wearing 
buttons on the Republican side during the last 2 and 4 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, here we go again. You 
know, it has been a very interesting 6 months. And I can still remember 
the very first day when we sat here adopting changes in the rules of 
the House.

                              {time}  1315

  And we went through each one individually, 20 minutes of debate and 
then a vote, 20 minutes of debate and a vote, and how we heard from the 
majority how this House was going to be reformed, how it was going to 
more adequately represent the people of this great country.
  But lo and behold, let us see what has happened since January 4. Let 
us go through this 6 months and see what has happened.
  How about the provision under the rules, the very new rule, that a 
Member could only serve on four subcommittees? How about that? Well, lo 
and behold, what do we find out? We have got 30 Members, most of them 
freshmen, the ones that held the charge for reform on five or six 
subcommittees. The heck with the rules of the House. I am better than 
the rules of the House. I do not have to abide by the rules of the 
House. I am a freshman in the majority. I can serve on five or six and 
the to heck with rules of the House. That is one of the things that has 
happened.
  What else has happened? Well, what is very interesting to me is this 
rule we have here today.
 Not only is it the rules of the House, but the Budget Act, a 
statutorily enacted law on the books that says that you have to do your 
appropriation bills and your reconciliation bills before you take over 
3 days' recess over the fourth of July. But we are not going to do 
that. This rule right here before us waives that and other rules so 
that the majority members, instead of finishing up the appropriation 
bills as we are supposed to do, and we have only got two done out of 
here, and I would like to remind that great majority, that outstanding 
majority, the Gingrich Republicans, and I know I cannot blame the 
gentlewoman from Utah for not knowing, because she was not here, but 
last year at this time, before July 4, under the then chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, all 13 appropriation bills were passed by 
the House, all 13 of them, not 2--13. But not the majority, not the 
Gingrich majority. They do not have to do it. They can take their good 
old time.

  In fact, I understand it will probably be near the end of July before 
we get through the last appropriation bill. Now, that does not strike 
me as getting the job of the Congress done.
  The majority has made a great big thing about all of the bills that 
they passed in the hundred days. Three of them have become law. One of 
them did not amount to a hill of beans. Two of them amount to a little 
bit, and that is about all we have done.
  Now, they talk about this great big budget that we just passed. Wait 
a minute folks, read the Budget Act. When are we supposed to have done 
that budget? Hey, anybody in the majority know when they were supposed 
to pass the budget? About 2\1/2\ months ago. That is all, a little late 
folks, way late. About time you got things on track. It is about time. 
I do not think they are ever going to get things on track. I think the 
train is going to eventually come to a grinding halt here around the 
1st of October, and I think that is a deliberate activity of the 
Republican majority in order to do that.
  I am tired of these reformers talking about all of these great rules 
changes and things they do, when all they end up doing is violating the 
rules of the House.
  I would also like to point out it is going to be interesting to me 
because I think we ought to have a rollcall vote on this resolution. 
The reason is because for years from that side, from the more senior 
Members on that side, anytime you had a waiver of the Budget Act, man, 
they exploded. They had to vote against it. They talked against it. You 
could not vote for a rule that waived the Budget Act, could not do it. 
I am going to be interested to see how many of them vote for the waiver 
of the Budget Act under this rule.
  In closing, I would like to make a quote that I have before me from 
Will Rogers. He said it way back in 1927. I think it applies probably a 
little bit to me right now and what I am going to be doing back in my 
district, since the Republicans are going to vote to send me on a 
vacation. This is Will Rogers:

       From now on I am going to lay off the Republicans. I have 
     never had anything against them as a race. I realize that out 
     of office, they are just as honest as any other class and 
     they have a place in the community that would have to be 
     taken up by somebody. So I want to apologize for all that I 
     have said about them and henceforth will have only a good 
     word to say of them. Mind you, I am not going to say anything 
     about them for a while, but that is not going to keep me from 
     watching them.

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that the budget 
was late, and we happen to agree with the gentleman that the budget was 
late. A balanced budget is about 40 years late.
  We were here for 93 days and passed the Contract With America, which 
was the most bipartisan Congress in the history of this body. And they 
have had 40 years to balance a budget, and they have not done it.
  We kept our word. We are here. We are going to balance the budget by 
2002, and it will happen.
  So we do agree it was late, 40 years late.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, simply to respond to the previous speaker, Mr. Speaker.
  There are a couple of points I think need to be clarified. The 
gentleman noted that he believed that all the appropriations bills had 
been passed before the July 4 district work period last year. In fact, 
the D.C. appropriation bill had not been passed. It is a small point, 
but one I think requires correcting as we are going to talk about 
appropriations bills on the floor.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to note that that 
same Congress that was seated last year, in 1993, did not complete 
their reconciliation bill until October, well past the time it was 
supposed to be completed by law.
  The budget that was passed in those 2 years of the preceding 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, inflated our deficit to record levels. I think 
the people of our Nation would rather we take our time and get it right 
and get it balanced than hurry through and continue a legacy of deficit 
spending that has continued unabated since 1969.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the irony of the 
previous speaker complaining about us not getting our work done will 
not be lost on those who worked on this floor or people across the 
country who have observed what has been going on for the past several 
days as we have wasted precious moments coming in to vote on procedural 
matters. I would simply point out, while he now complains about us 
going home so we can talk with the people in our districts over the 
coming week, the previous speaker voted in favor of a motion to adjourn 
just earlier this morning.

[[Page H6678]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
ended his presentation with a quotation from the distinguished 
American, Will Rogers. I want to start mine with another quotation from 
another distinguished American, Yogi Berra. Yogi Berra said, ``This is 
deja vu all over again,'' and that is really what I want to talk about, 
because this is deja vu all over again.
  You have not seen me on the floor recently very much. Earlier in this 
term, during the first 100 days, I rose time after time after time to 
protest procedural shortcomings that my Republican colleagues had 
engaged in. They want to take credit for all of this reform, yet they 
do not want to comply with their own rules that they are taking credit 
for among the American people.
  Let me give you some examples. On the opening day of this Congress, 
my colleagues passed a new rule which bars proxy voting in committees. 
They argued that proxy voting makes a mockery of the committee process 
and concentrates power in committee leaders. Well, I happen to agree 
with them.
  So what do they do on a regular basis in committee? We cannot vote by 
proxies, but anytime a vote comes out in a way that they do not like, 
then they simply go back and ask for reconsideration so that when their 
Members are not there, they always have a fallback position to come 
back in and get the results that they are looking for anyway.
  They talked about the value of proxy voting. Well, I believe in no 
proxy voting, too. I think it makes for better deliberation to have the 
Members in the committee doing work. But they also passed a rule on the 
opening day of this Congress which talked about waiving the 5-minute 
rule in the House. Well, what is the 5-minute rule in the House? We 
debate things on the House floor under a 5-minute rule, and they passed 
a rule which says you cannot have a committee meeting while we are 
under the 5-minute rule in the House.
  Well, just about every day we have been in this session of Congress, 
my colleagues, after they passed that rule, have come back to this 
House of Representatives every single day and asked for a waiver of 
that rule so that committees can continue to meet while we are doing 
debate, important debate, right here on the floor.
  There was a day last week when I had two markups going, one in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, one in the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, and a bill that I was involved in on the floor 
right here, and they said, ``Well, you can be in three places at one 
time because we waived the rule that allowed the committees to meet 
even though we are doing something that is important to you on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.''
  Well, let us hasten along to talk about why this is deja vu all over 
again, because my colleagues on the Republican side also on opening day 
passed this rule, and it says, ``No Member of the House can serve on 
more than four subcommittees of this House.'' Well, look at the record, 
if you will. There is not a single Democratic Member of the House of 
Representatives who serves on more than four subcommittees, because the 
rule says that.
  But look at my friends on the other side of the aisle, 30, 30 
Republican Members are violating this House rule. Two-thirds of the 
Members who violate this rule are the same freshmen Republicans who 
came into this House saying they support reform and honesty with the 
people of the American electorate, but they themselves will not abide 
by their own House rules that they have adopted.
  Well, is it deja vu all over again?
  Let me make the other points, as I have got only 2 minutes.
  They passed a rule on opening day of this House which said that the 
Congressional Record will be a verbatim transcript of what actually 
happens in the House.

                              {time}  1330

  Well, my colleagues have not complied with that rule either. They 
have come right back and, on numerous occasions, have changed, changed 
the transcript of what has happened in the House to reflect what they 
would like to have happened rather than what actually happened.
  Well, one final thing. They said on opening day, and they went out 
into the public and took credit for it as an important issue of reform, 
that a three-fifths vote, a three-fifths vote is required, to pass any 
new taxing provision. But on several occasions my colleagues have come 
into this House and violated their own rules.
  So why is this deja vu all over again? Because it is a systematic 
practice on this side of the aisle to come in and violate the rules of 
the House and have us try to sanction their own violations.
  I say to my colleagues, if you are going to take credit for reform, 
then at least live up to the standard that you set for yourselves. You 
ask us to comply with the law. We comply with the law. You asked us to 
comply with the rules. We complied with the rules. All we are simply 
asking you to do is to comply with the very same rules that we must 
comply with that you are telling the American people that you are 
complying with, and, if you do that, then maybe you can have a better 
audience in the future.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems that our previous speaker is complaining about 
reforms that have resulted in open rules.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the previous rule structure, 
voting by proxy, was more convenient for Members of the House, but it 
was not good government. When the new majority took over this year, we 
inherited a bloated committee structure that had so many committees and 
subcommittees that proxy voting was basically the only way that things 
could happen around here if the Members did not want to have to move 
quickly at times. To start on our reforms we cut out 3 whole 
committees, 25 subcommittees, in an attempt to make it easier for 
Members to completely fulfill their obligations, which I believe, Mr. 
Speaker, includes physically going to our committee meetings and voting 
rather than handing a proxy to someone else who votes on their behalf 
without them having to consider what is coming before their committee.
  We are continuing, Mr. Speaker, to try to work out the problems that 
had been created. It is true that having people have to actually be in 
their committees and vote is resulting in us having to hurry at times. 
It is true that it is less convenient for Members than the old proxy 
voting was. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have a better 
Government and a better deliberative process for the difference.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue in our working to continue to 
find better ways to work out the scheduling problems to see if there 
are other ways to streamline the committee structure, but I believe, 
Mr. Speaker, that the people at home have every right to expect us to 
exercise our voting privileges personally and not by proxy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to waive all kinds of rules so we can 
go on our vacation for the Fourth of July.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what kind of rules we will be asked to 
waive in August so that Members can go on book tours.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering what 
good does it do to do reform of the rules if they then turn around and 
violate the rules that they have reformed. I do not know what good that 
does.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield and allow me to 
respond?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the 
gentleman from Texas.

[[Page H6679]]

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Is the gentleman not allowing me an opportunity to 
respond?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman will have plenty of time to 
him, and I have got a few things for her to respond to, too, but let me 
pose them first.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are many Americans who are out there 
saying when they watch the proceedings in this House that there ought 
to be a law against what is happening up there. There ought to be a law 
against some of the things that are not happening up there.
  I say to my colleagues, Well you know what? There is a law. It is 
called the Congressional Budget Act, and the Congressional Budget Act 
is what these folks propose in this resolution to just suspend, to say 
that they, unlike other Americans, don't have to comply with some of 
the laws in the statute books, that they can kind of pick and choose 
the laws of this great country that they wish to comply with. You see 
the Congressional Budget Act says that we are to have a budget 
resolution passed and approved in this Congress so we have the 
guidelines for the budget that will govern the American people with 
trillions of dollars of expenditure, and it sets a date for doing that, 
and that date is not yesterday. That date is April 15. Can you imagine 
what would happen if the American citizens didn't pay their taxes on 
April 15 when they are due? Would someone permit them to say, ``Well, 
we'll just suspend that this year; it just doesn't feel good to pay 
taxes on April 15. We'll just suspend that.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is what these good folks have done, and then they 
tell us in this law that applies to every American and to this Congress 
that it is our obligation to complete something called the 
Reconciliation Act, which when this Congress was in the hands of 
Democrats in 1993, they followed that law. It says:

       You complete the Reconciliation Act on the budget, and you 
     do it before you go home on July the Fourth. You cannot 
     recess for more than 3 days during the month of July until 
     you have completed the Reconciliation Act.

  Mr. Speaker, where I come from, down in Texas, people understand 
that. They either do their work or they do not get their break. They 
either do their work or they do not go on vacation. But apparently our 
colleagues in the majority, the Republicans, do not understand that 
because, instead of complying with the law and completing 
reconciliation, what do they come before this House today to do? They 
asked us to suspend the law for them. They want to go home instead of 
doing the work that the law charges them with doing.
  I do not declare that, if this Republican majority has to suspend any 
more of the law on the budget, every one of them ought to have to come 
out here in suspenders because they have been suspending this and 
suspending that, and they are not doing the people's work to complete 
this budget on time.
  What difference should all that make other than just this example of 
flouting one law after another to the American people? Well, as a 
matter of fact, I think it is going to make a big difference when they 
pay their taxes, when they reach in their pocketbook, to wonder what 
has happened on Medicare, when they reach in their pocketbook to wonder 
what has happened in the way taxes are paid in this country, because, I 
ask, ``What happens when you delay, and you delay, and you delay, and 
you got those suspenders on, and you're suspending one law after 
another instead of complying with it?'' It is that it finally all comes 
home to roost, and it is all going to come home to roost around here 
after these big vacations are over with and we are faced with the 
problems of the fall because, my colleagues, we are only about 3 months
 from the time that the train wreck is going to occur.

  Mr. Speaker, we are going to be down to the end of this fiscal year. 
We are going to be facing a debt limit, and it is all going to back up, 
and it is going to pile up, and we will have all these last-minute 
proposals that say from the Republicans: ``Well, Mr. and Mrs. Senior 
American, we're going to need a little more help out of you. If you 
want to see your own doctor next month instead of the one that some 
organization picks out for you, pull out a twenty out of your pocket 
because it is going to cost you about $20 more a month to do that.''
  They are going to say, ``Well, Mr. and Mrs. Senior American, are the 
young people that are trying to care for their parents and honor their 
father and mother,'' they are going to say to them, ``Well, if you want 
to stay at home with home care instead of going into a nursing home, it 
is going to cost you more money.''
  They are going to say, as one of the Members of the Republican 
leadership does, ``If you're about to turn 65 and retire, don't look to 
Medicare to cover you health care because you're going to have to wait 
until 67. Oh, your employer won't cover it anymore? Well, that's tough. 
You'll have to come up with thousands of dollars to provide yourself 
medical insurance if you get it at age 65 or 66.''
  And there is one other thing that needs to be said:
  As a State judge, I saw one defendant after another who, lacking a 
meritorious defense, would come forward and would use delay as their 
shield. It is not surprising when a defendant does that; it is 
surprising when the judge gets in a partnership with the defendant to 
use delay as a defense, and on one very critical matter in this House 
we have heard action would be taken after the Contract. We have heard 
action would be taken after Memorial Day. We have heard action would be 
taken at the end of June, before the July Fourth recess, and yesterday 
a story in the New York Times put a lie to all of that when it reported 
how little work the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had 
done. It is an outrage for this House to adjourn without the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct acting on the complaint against 
Speaker Gingrich.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond to the question that I was 
asked but that I was not allowed an opportunity to respond to. The 
gentleman asked why it is all right to waive our own rules. Well, as 
the gentleman well knows, in order to expedite the business of this 
House, to keep it rolling, we have to make some decisions about what is 
the most important requirement that the people at home expect of us. It 
is true, Mr. Speaker, that by doing away with proxy voting and 
expecting people to actually go and vote in the committee that they are 
assigned to, that we have had to allow those committees to carry out 
their work while there has also been business moving forward on the 
floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, we have not waived that most important 
rule of requiring people to go and exercise their own vote in the 
committee to which they are assigned. It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that 
we continue to hold fast to those rules that represent real reform in 
this body, and we have done so. Rules that are created, however, for 
the convenience of Members sometimes will have to be suspended in order 
to allow us to do what needs to be done.
                              {time}  1345

  So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the people of this country will 
judge us on whether we are keeping the commitments that we have made to 
do our work, to vote ourselves rather than allowing someone else to 
vote for us. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this 
country will support us in continuing to keep the business of this 
House moving forward at the same time we expect people to do their work 
themselves instead of handing off their decisionmaking ability to 
someone else.
  Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that, while people keep talking about 
us somehow being derelict in our duty by going to our districts this 
week, I would submit that the decision as to how we are going to spend 
this Nation's money, which is what the budget process is all about, 
that decision should not be made solely in Washington, DC. The people 
at home in our districts have every right to have the opportunity to 
tell us how they want us to spend their money.
  And this district work period, while, yes, I plan to go see my family 
on the 4th of July, this district work period is an opportunity for us 
to go home and talk with the people who sent us here, to ask them what 
it is they want us to 

[[Page H6680]]
do, how they want us to spend their money, because we can never forget, 
Mr. Speaker, it is not our money, it is theirs.
  It is appropriate for us to go home in the midst of this budget 
process and ask them what they would like us to do with their money. 
This is a district work period, Mr. Speaker. It is an opportunity for 
us to go home and see what it is that people want us to do. I think 
that there is no better use of our time for a period during this budget 
process.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I was just going to inquire what the 
gentlewoman did during the April recess when we were out for 3 weeks 
and you all seem to have spent all your time parading around bragging 
about what you did in the first 100 days; why did you not do it during 
that period?
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to show 
the gentleman exactly what I did during the April recess, meeting with 
my constituents, talking with people at home. There is never enough 
time, Mr. Speaker, to talk with the people who sent us here. I am 
perfectly happy to go home and have another opportunity to meet with 
them even if the gentleman does not think he needs it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we urge a ``no'' vote on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I think we have said all that needs to 
be said on this matter. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 157, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               YEAS--242

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

                               NAYS--157

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Boucher
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Clement
     Collins (MI)
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Goodlatte
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Johnston
     Lantos
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Ortiz
     Pickett
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Reynolds
     Roukema
     Schroeder
     Sisisky
     Stenholm
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1409

  Ms. DANNER and Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
 conditional recess or adjournment of the senate on thursday, june 29, 
  1995, or friday, june 30, 1995, until monday, july 10, 1995, and a 
conditional adjournment of the house on the legislative day of friday, 
               june 30, 1995, until monday, july 10, 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the Chair 
lays before the House the following concurrent resolution from the 
Senate:

                            S. Con. Res. 20

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the 
     close of business on Thursday, June 29, 1995, or Friday, June 
     30, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or 
     his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand 
     recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, July 10, 
     1995, or until such time on that day as may be specified by 
     the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess 
     or adjourn, or until 12:00 noon on the second day after 
     Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of 
     this resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
     House of Representatives adjourns on the legislative day of 
     Friday, June 30, 1995, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on 
     Monday, July 10, 1995, or until 12:00 noon on the second day 
     after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
     2 of this resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
     of the House, acting jointly 

[[Page H6681]]
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and Minority 
     Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Senate 
     and the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their 
     opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Senate concurrent 
resolution is concurred in.
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________