[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.
____________________