[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10927-H10937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 525 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 525

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported from that 
     committee for the remainder of the second session of the One 
     Hundred Fourth Congress providing for consideration or 
     disposition of any of the following:
       (1) A bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, 
     any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
       (2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions 
     making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997, any 
     amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the remainder 
     of the second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress for 
     the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules, 
     provided that the object of any such motion is announced from 
     the floor at least one hour before the motion is offered. In 
     scheduling the consideration of legislation under this 
     authority, the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the 
     minority leader or his designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 525 is the customary rule

[[Page H10928]]

we consider towards the end of a session to permit the House to 
expedite its business and adjourn. The rule does two things.
  First, it permits same day consideration of special rules for the 
consideration of general and continuing appropriations measures, 
amendments thereto or conference reports thereon.
  Second, it makes in order to consider motions to suspend the rules on 
any day during the remainder of the session, provided 1 hour's advance 
notice is given from the floor and the Speaker or his designee consults 
with the minority leader or his designee.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the Committee on Rules last Thursday 
when we considered this rule, I am not a big advocate of such expedited 
procedure rules such as this. I was not when I was the minority leader 
and I still am not now that I am in the majority.
  Members still have a right to know what it is that they are being 
asked to vote on, notwithstanding the desire to complete our business 
and return home to our families and to our constituents in the 
remaining 6 weeks before the upcoming election.
  Last Thursday in the Committee on Rules I expressed my agreement with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] that these special rules 
for expedited procedures on appropriations and suspension measures 
should be used sparingly and they should be used judiciously, and they 
are going to be if I have anything to say about it, and I will.
  I indicated my support for giving Members the maximum possible notice 
of the scheduling of any matters under these special procedures and the 
opportunity to review the text of legislation they will be voting on.
  Last Thursday, in announcing the program for this week on the floor, 
the majority leader echoed those same sentiments, and he expressed the 
hope that it would not even be necessary to use the extra suspension 
days afforded by this resolution that we are considering right now.
  If it does become necessary to utilize these special suspension days, 
this resolution does provide some safeguards, including at least 1 
hour's advance notice of any suspension to be scheduled and also the 
required consultation between the Speaker and the minority leader or 
their designees on the scheduling of such suspension bills.

  Mr. Speaker, I think it is also worth pointing out that there are 
three House rules, and if Members are listening in their offices, they 
ought to pay attention to this, there are three House rules that 
already exist that are of a similar nature as their resolution but are 
impractical, in effect, because of how they are worded. Let me explain 
that.
  The first is found in House and rule XI, clause 4(b), which requires 
a two-thirds vote on the same day consideration of rules from the 
Committee on Rules. The rule goes on, however, to say that, and I 
quote, ``this provision shall not apply during the last 3 days of the 
session.'' During the last 3 days of the session. When is that?
  The problem with that is that we do not really know what are the last 
3 days of the session until both Houses have passed a sine die 
adjournment resolution that contains a date certain for adjournment. We 
all hope that the next 3 days will be the last of this session, but we 
do not know that for certain.
  As Yogi Berra put it one time, ``It ain't over till it's over,'' and 
I wish I knew when it was going to be over. I hope it is going to be 
over this Friday.
  Now, the second rule is House rule XXVII, which deals with 
consideration of measures under the suspension of the rules procedure. 
Clause 1 of that rule says that it is in order for the Speaker to 
entertain motions to suspend the rules, and I quote, ``on Mondays and 
Tuesdays, and during the last 6 days of the session.''
  But, again, we do not know yet which are the last 6 days of the 
session without an adjournment resolution in place. Is it going to be 
tomorrow, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday? We just do not 
know that, and yet we have to expedite these matters, and that is why 
we have this kind of rule on the floor right now.
  Finally, rule XXVIII, which deals with conference reports, requires 
in clause 2(a) that it is not in order to consider conference reports 
until the 3d day of their availability. That is what the rule says. But 
it goes on to say, and I quote again, ``the preceding provisions do not 
apply during the last 6 days of the session.''

                              {time}  1745

  Think about that.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it can be seen from the standing 
House rules that I have just quoted that this resolution is not really 
a marked departure from those rules. It only makes such rules a 
practical working reality, whereas now they are not due to the lack of 
an adopted adjournment resolution. If you want to go ahead and adopt a 
resolution, that is fine with me; but absent that, we still have to do 
the people's work. We have to get these appropriations conference 
reports passed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by reiterating my earlier expressed hope 
that these special procedures are used sparingly, that they are used 
judicially so that Members will have an opportunity to consider any 
measure brought under these procedures in an informed and deliberative 
manner.
  This rule was adopted by the Committee on Rules by voice vote, though 
it was not a unanimous vote. I appreciate the cooperation of our 
ranking minority member [Mr. Moakley] in allowing us to schedule this 
as an emergency matter on such short notice as last Thursday. He was 
trying to cooperate so that we can get out of here. I hope this will 
enable us to complete the work of this historic Congress this week and 
return to our constituents with a record of accomplishment of which I 
personally am very proud, particularly with the line item veto that we 
finally, once and for all, had signed into law and is now the law of 
the land.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very very bad idea.
  It gives the Republican leadership carte blanche to bring up just 
about anything they want just about whenever they want.
  It is a very powerful tool and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Now I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that martial law is always a bad 
idea, in fact when a session is coming to a close and a lot of bills 
need to be finished it can be useful on a short-term case-by-case 
basis, let me repeat that Mr. Speaker, martial law can be useful on a 
short term case-by-case basis, in which bills are specified by name.
  But martial law is very dangerous when applied as a blanket over the 
end of the session.
  In fact, last time the Republicans imposed martial law it lasted for 
4 months from November 15 to March 15 during that time the U.S. 
Government was closed twice for a total of 27 days.
  Mr. Speaker, martial law was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.
  It takes away the normal protection afforded the minority and it 
keeps Members from adequately looking bills over before they vote on 
them. We have no way to make sure that bills are what they appear to be 
and that can be serious.
  Under this rule, the Republican leadership can bring up a bill under 
suspension of the rules for the remainder of this session. All they 
need to do is give 1 hour's notice.
  Mr. Speaker, this can be a very dangerous way of passing legislation, 
anything could be stuck in these suspension bills and, in all 
likelihood, Members won't be the wiser until it's too late.
  This rule which suspends many of the protections of the House can 
lead to serious abuses of the democratic process and it can further 
undermine the credibility of the Republican leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, everybody knows I dearly love my counterpart over on the 
Committee on Rules, Joe Moakley. He is a delightful fellow, but I just 
have to take exception with some of the things he said.
  I am looking at an article in what is called the Hill newspaper, I 
guess it is

[[Page H10929]]

Roll Call. It is entitled, ``In Adjournment Push, Martial Law 
Declared.'' It is written by a Jennifer Bradley. She quotes Mr. Moakley 
at length in this article. She does not bother to quote me. Otherwise, 
I would have been glad to set the record straight.
  Let me set that record straight, Mr. Speaker, because there really 
has been some disinformation circulated to the popular press by some 
under-informed staff on the other side of the aisle, which my good 
friend, Mr. Moakley, seems to be espousing some of it right now.
  I think it is important to set the record straight, since the press 
did not bother to check with the majority of our committee on the 
facts, either with me or with my chief of staff. It was claimed by an 
unnamed Democrat staff source quoted in yesterday's Roll Call that 
there are ``significant differences between this martial law rule and 
one the Democrats pushed through in previous Congresses.''

  So let us get the record straight. The staffer is quoted as saying 
that the main differences between the time it occurred before and now 
is that before it was only for one bill. This martial law rule will go 
on until the end of the session. That is what this staffer said.
  The Democrat staffer concluded, and I quote again from this article: 
``It's sort of a blanket authority for the scariest leadership on 
earth.''
  Boy, those are strong statements. I would just like to invite that 
staffer to visit places like Iraq or Iran or Libya or Cuba, to name 
just a few of the other countries, before condemning America in such 
harsh terms.
  The fact is, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that this two-thirds waiver 
for same day consideration of a rule is not a blanket one. It only 
applies to rules for continuing or general appropriation bills and 
conference reports, and we will probably have only two or three such 
appropriation rules in the remainder of the session. That is all that 
is left out there.
  Second, the fact is that in the past Congresses, the Democrats 
granted such rules for multiple classes or numbers of bills, six in the 
101st Congress and three in the 102d Congress. Who was chairman of the 
Committee on Rules at that time? My good friend, Joe Moakley. It came 
out under his leadership.
  Third, the Democrats also had rules for extra suspension days in past 
Congresses that were not confined to single bills, one in the 101st 
Congress and three in the 102d Congress.
  And fourth, Mr. Speaker, the number of expedited procedures or 
suspension rules granted in this Congress, 11 with today's rule, is 
identical to the number of two-thirds waiver or suspension rules 
granted by the Democrats in the last 2 years' Congress. Again, who was 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules? The gentleman who is standing 
up here complaining now, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. 
Joseph Moakley.
  In the 101st and 102d Congresses, there were nine such special rules 
in each Congress that either waived the two-thirdss rule or created 
extra suspension days, which is really what we are going here on a 
very, very limited basis.
  At the conclusion of my remarks, I will include a list of such 
special rules in each of the last three Congresses, plus the list for 
this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I would hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle would take greater care in doing their own research 
before they embrace uninformed and sloppy staff reports, because that 
is really what brought about this Roll Call article.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we are today utilizing the same traditional 
authorities granted by this House in previous Congresses to complete 
our work on time. There is nothing new, let alone scary about it, 
unless you are a paranoid, delusional, amnesiac of some kind, and I do 
not think anybody really is here.
  Let us put an end to these exaggerated pre-Halloween scare tactics, 
face up to the facts and reality of both the past and the present and 
let us get on with completing the people's business. The people want us 
out of here, Mr. Speaker. They want us back home to campaign in the 
last 5 or 6 weeks of this election.
  Again, I include for the Record the proof of what I have just cited 
on the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, 103d Congress, and the 104th 
Congress:

  Expedited Procedure and Extra Suspension Day Rules Reported by the 
           Rules Committee: 101st-104th Congresses (1989-96)

       101st Congress, 1989-90: (9 rules).
       H. Res. 417--Extra suspension day (flag desecration 
     constitutional amendment).
       H. Res. 482--Two-thirds waiver (budget resolution, CR).
       H. Res. 489--Two-thirds waiver (budget resolution, CR, debt 
     limit).
       H. Res. 497--Two-thirds waiver (budget resolution, CR, debt 
     limit).
       H. Res. 512--Two-thirds waiver (approps, reconciliation, 
     debt limit).
       H. Res. 517--Two-thirds waiver (approps, reconciliation, 
     debt limit).
       H. Res. 527--Two-thirds waiver (approps bills, 
     reconciliation, debt limit).
       H. Res. 533--Two-thirds waiver (Clean Air Act).
       H. Res. 534--Extra suspension days (general).
       102nd Congress, 1991-92: (9 rules).
       H. Res. 294--Two-thirds waiver (7 specified bills) & extra 
     suspension days (general).
       H. Res. 304--Two-thirds waiver (MFN for China conf. rept.).
       H. Res. 500--Two-thirds waiver (any rail strike bills).
       H. Res. 507--Two-thirds waiver (unemployment comp conf. 
     rept.).
       H. Res. 591--Two-thirds waiver (approps bills), conf. rept. 
     waivers, and extra suspension days.
       H. Res. 597--Two-thirds waiver (auto theft bill).
       H. Res. 425--Extra suspension day (Senate amendment to 
     Older Americans Act).
       H. Res. 577--Extra suspension days (MFN for Romania).
       H. Res. 591--Two-thirds waiver (approps), conf. rept. 
     waivers, extra suspension days (general).
       103rd Congress, 1993-94: (11 rules).
       H. Res. 61--Two-thirds waiver (family & medical leave act).
       H. Res. 111--Two-thirds waiver (unemployment comp).
       H. Res. 142--Two-thirds waiver (budget resolution).
       H. Res. 150--Two-thirds waiver (emergency approps).
       H. Res. 153--Two-thirds waiver (emergency approps).
       H. Res. 322--Two-thirds waiver (Brady bill).
       H. Res. 356--Two-thirds waiver (emergency approps).
       H. Res. 395--Two-thirds waiver (crime bill).
       H. Res. 441--Two-thirds waiver (Foreign ops approps).
       H. Res. 522--Two-thirds waiver (Crime bill).
       H. Res. 397--Extra suspension days (lobby reform).
       104th Congress, 1995-96: (11 rules).
       H. Res. 260--Two-thirds waiver (CR, debt limit).
       H. Res. 265--Two-thirds waiver (CR).
       H. Res. 275--Extra suspension days (general).
       H. Res. 276--Two-thirds waiver (reconciliation, approps).
       H. Res. 297--Two-thirds waiver (approps, debt limit, 
     reconciliation, Bosnia bill).
       H. Res. 342--Two-thirds waiver (approps, debt limit).
       H. Res. 386--Two-thirds waiver (approps, debt limit).
       H. Res. 412--Two-thirds waiver (approps).
       H. Res. 492--Two-thirds waiver (reconciliation).
       H. Res. 500--Two-thirds waiver (health care portability 
     bill).
       H. Res. 525--Two-thirds waiver (approps) and extra 
     suspension days (general).
       Sources: Rules Committee Activity Reports 101st-103rd 
     Congresses; Rules Committee Calendar & House Calendar, 104th 
     Congress.


        expedited procedure--\2/3\ waiver rules, 104th congress

              (Compiled by Rules Committee Majority Staff)

       In the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee has reported 
     eleven resolutions allowing for same-day consideration of 
     certain rules. The authority granted by these resolutions has 
     been utilized on twelve occasions.
       In the first session, the Rules Committee reported four 
     resolutions allowing for same-day consideration of certain 
     resolutions from the Committee. The authority granted by 
     these resolutions was utilized on five occasions.
       In the second session to date, the Rules Committee has 
     reported seven resolutions allowing for same-day 
     consideration of certain resolutions from the Committee. The 
     authority granted was utilized on seven occasions. Two of the 
     resolutions allowed same-day consideration for rules dealing 
     with specific bills. In both of these cases, the authority 
     granted was utilized.

                             First Session

       H. Res. 260, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 
     XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions 
     reported from the Committee on Rules.
       Provisions: Allowed for same day consideration of rules 
     providing for the consideration of the following: (1) any 
     measure making further continuing appropriations; (2) any 
     measure including provisions increasing or waiving the public 
     debt limit for resolutions reported before November 13, 1995.
       Disposed of: Reported on November 9, 1995 (House Report 
     104-330). Tabled by unanimous consent on December 6, 1995.
       Authority Utilized: No.
       H. Res. 265, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 
     XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions 
     reported from the Committee on Rules.

[[Page H10930]]

       Provisions: Allowed for same-day consideration of rules 
     providing for the consideration of any measure making further 
     continuing appropriations for resolutions reported before 
     November 23, 1995.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on November 15, 1995 by 
     voice vote.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 270, providing for 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 122, making further continuing 
     appropriations for FY 1996. Reported from the Rules Committee 
     on November 15, 1995. Adopted by the House on November 15, 
     1995 by a vote of 249-176.
       H. Res. 276, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 
     XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions 
     reported from the Committee on Rules.
       Provisions: Allowed for same-day consideration of rules 
     providing for the consideration of (1) H.R. 2491, budget 
     reconciliation or (2) any measure making general 
     appropriations for FY 1996 for resolutions reported before 
     November 23, 1995.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House by voice vote on November 
     18, 1995.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 279, providing for 
     consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2491, budget 
     reconciliation. Reported from the Rules Committee on November 
     18, 1995. Adopted by the House on November 18, 1995 by voice 
     vote.
       H. Res. 297, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 
     XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions 
     reported from the Committee on Rules.
       Provisions: Allowed for same-day consideration of rules 
     providing for consideration of (1) general appropriations 
     measures for FY 1996; (2) a bill or joint resolution making 
     further continuing appropriations for FY 1996; (3) a bill or 
     joint resolution increasing or waiving the public debt limit; 
     (4) a bill providing for a balanced budget by 2002; (5) a 
     bill or resolution relating to Bosnia for resolutions 
     reported during the remainder of the first session of the 
     104th Congress.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on December 13, 1995 by a 
     vote of 230-186.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 301, waiving points of 
     order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1977, 
     Department of Interior and related agencies appropriations 
     for FY 1996. Reported from the Rules Committee on December 
     13, 1995. Adopted by the House on December 13, 1995 by a vote 
     of 231-188.
       (2) H. Res. 304, providing for debate and consideration of 
     three measures relating to Bosnia. Reported from the Rules 
     Committee on December 13, 1995. Adopted by the House no 
     December 13, 1995 by a vote of 357-70.
       (3) H. Res. 317, providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 
     134, making further continuing appropriations for FY 1996. 
     Reported from the Rules Committee on December 20, 1995. 
     Adopted by the House on December 20, 1995 by a vote of 238-
     172.

                             Second Session

       H. Res. 330, authorizing the Speaker to declare recesses 
     subject to the call of the Chair, and waiving a requirement 
     of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to certain resolutions 
     reported from the Rules Committee.
       Provisions: The rule allowed the Speaker to declare 
     recesses subject to the call of the Chair and allowed for 
     same-day consideration of rules providing for consideration 
     of (1) a bill making general appropriations for FY1996; (2) a 
     bill or joint resolution making further continuing 
     appropriations for FY1996; (3) a bill or joint resolution 
     that includes provisions increasing or waiving the public 
     debt limit; (4) a bill to provide for a balanced budget by 
     2002 for resolutions reported by the Rules Committee before 
     January 24, 1996.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on January 5, 1996 by a 
     vote of 224-190.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 336, providing for 
     disposition of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 134, making 
     further continuing appropriations for FY1996. Reported from 
     the Rules Committee on January 5, 1996. Passed the House on 
     January 5, 1996 by voice vote.
       (2) H. Res. 338, providing for the disposition of the 
     Senate amendment to H.R. 1358, to require the Secretary of 
     Commerce to convey to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service laboratory located on 
     Emerson Avenue in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Reported from 
     Rules on January 5, 1996. Adopted by the House on January 5, 
     1996.
       H. Res. 342, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 
     XI with respect to certain resolutions reported by the Rules 
     Committee.
       Provisions: Allowed for same-day consideration of rules 
     providing for consideration of (1) a bill making general 
     appropriations for FY1996; (2) a bill or joint resolution 
     making further continuing appropriations for FY1996; (3) a 
     bill or joint resolution including provisions increasing or 
     waiving the public debt limit for resolutions reported before 
     March 16, 1996.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on January 25, 1996 by a 
     vote of 229-191.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 351, waiving points of 
     order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2546, 
     District of Columbia Appropriations for FY1996. Reported from 
     the Rules Committee on January 31, 1996. Adopted by the House 
     on January 31, 1996 by voice vote.
       H. Res. 355, providing for consideration of H.R. 2924, to 
     guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits in 
     March 1996. Reported from the Rules Committee on February 1, 
     1996. Adopted by the House on February 1, 1996 by a voice 
     vote.
       H. Res. 386, providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 165, 
     making further continuing appropriations for FY1996, and 
     waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect 
     to certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee.
       Provisions: Provides for consideration of the joint 
     resolution under a closed rule, with one hour of general 
     debate and one motion to recommit which may include 
     instructions if offered by the Minority Leader or his 
     designee. The rule allows for same-day consideration of rules 
     providing for the consideration of (1) a bill making general 
     appropriations for FY1996; (2) a bill or joint resolution 
     making further continuing appropriations for FY1996; (3) a 
     bill or joint resolution that includes provisions increasing 
     or waiving the public debt limit for resolutions reported 
     before April 1, 1996.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on March 21, 1996 by a 
     vote of 237-183.
       Authority Utilized: Not used.
       H. Res. 412, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of Rule 
     XI with respect to the same day consideration of certain 
     resolutions reported by the Rules Committee.
       Provisions: Allows for same-day consideration of rules 
     providing for consideration of (1) a bill making general 
     appropriations for FY1996; (2) a bill or joint resolution 
     including provisions making further continuing appropriations 
     for FY1996 for resolutions reported before April 27, 1996.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on April 25, 1996 by a 
     vote of 286-135.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 415, waiving points of 
     order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 3019, 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a further 
     downpayment toward a balanced budget. Reported from the Rules 
     Committee on April 25, 1996. Adopted by the House on April 
     25, 1996 by voice vote.
       H. Res. 492 (Welfare Only), waiving a requirement of clause 
     4(b) of Rule XI with respect to the same day consideration of 
     a resolution reported by the Rules Committee.
       Provisions: Allows for same-day consideration of a rule 
     providing for consideration or disposition of a conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 for rules reported before August 1, 1996.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on July 31, 1996 by voice 
     vote.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 495, waiving points of 
     order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 3734, 
     the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. Reported from the 
     Rules Committee on July 31, 1996. Passed the House on July 
     31, 1996 by a vote of 281-137.
       H. Res. 500 (Health Care Only), waiving a requirement of 
     clause 4(b) of Rule XI with respect to the same-day 
     consideration of a resolution reported by the Rules 
     Committee.
       Provisions: Allows for same day consideration of a rule 
     providing for the consideration or disposition of a 
     conference report to accompany H.R. 3103, the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, for rules 
     reported before August 2, 1996.
       Disposed of: Adopted by the House on August 1, 1996 by 
     voice vote.
       Authority Utilized: (1) H. Res. 502, waiving points of 
     order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 3103, 
     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 
     Reported from the Rules Committee on August 1, 1996. Passed 
     the House on August 1, 1996 by voice vote.
       H. Res. 525, waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of Rule 
     XI with respect to same day consideration of certain 
     resolutions reported by the Rules Committee, and for other 
     purposes.
       Provisions: Allows same day consideration of rules reported 
     by the Rules Committee providing for consideration of any 
     measures, amendments thereto, conference reports thereon, or 
     amendments reported in disagreement thereon that (1) make 
     general appropriations for FY 1977 or (2) make continuing 
     appropriations for FY1997. H. Res. 525 also makes it in order 
     to consider motions to suspend the rules on any day during 
     the remainder of the second session of the 104th Congress.
       Disposed of: Reported by the Rules Committee on September 
     19, 1996.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear one thing up. The term 
``scariest'' was not my statement. I did not say it was the scariest.
   Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record, Martial Law in the 104th 
Congress, some of the things it will cover:

[[Page H10931]]



                                                               MARTIAL LAW--104TH CONGRESS                                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Martial Law               Duration                   Purpose                              Rule                               Bill              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 265 (11/15)..........  11/15-11/23.....  CR's                               H. Res. 270 (11/15)                H.J. Res. 122 (CR).              
H. Res. 276 (11/18)..........  11/18/-11/23....  Recon./Gen apprs                   H. Res. 279 (11/18)                H.R. 2491 (Recon).               
H. Res. 297 12/13............  12/13-1/3.......  Gen Apprs/Crs                      H. Res. 301 (12/13)                H. R. 1977                       
                                                 Debt Limit/Bal                     H. Res. 304 (12/13)                Int Appr JC Rpt                  
                                                 Budget/Bosnia                      H. Res. 317 (12/20)                H.R.2770 (Bos)                   
                                                                                                                       H.Res 302 (Bos)                  
                                                                                                                       H.Res. 306 (Bos)                 
                                                                                                                       H.J. Res 134 (CR)                
H. Res. 330 (1/15)...........  1/5-1/24........  Gen Apprs/Crs                      H. Res. 334 (1/5)                  H.R. 1643 (CR)                   
                                                 Debt Limit/Bal.                    H. Res. 336 (1/5)                  H.J. Res. 134 (CR)               
                                                 Budget/Recess Auth.                H. Res 338 (1/5)                   H.R. 1358 (CR)                   
H. Res. 342 (1/25)...........  1/25-3/15.......  Gen. Apprs/Crs                     H. Res. 351 (1/31)                 H.R. 2546 (DC Approps Crpt).     
                                                 Debt Limit                                                                                             
H. Res. 412..................  4/25-4/27.......  Gen Apprs/Crs                      H. Res. 415                        H.R. 3019 (CR).                  
H. Res. 492..................  7/31/96.........  Reconciliation Conf. Rept          H. Res. 495                        H.R. 3734 Recon. Con Rpt.        
H. Res. 500..................  8/1/96..........  HealthCare Conf. Rpt               H. Res. 502                        H.R. 3103 (Health Conf Rpt.      
H. Res. 525..................  9/24-/96........  Gen Apprs/Crs                                                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In the 104th Congress, the House conducted business 
     continuously under martial law for four months (November 15 
     through March 15).
       7 of the 9 measures considered under martial law were 
     continuing resolutions or appropriations conference reports 
     needed to stave off government shutdowns caused by the 
     majority's failure to complete appropriations before the end 
     of the fiscal year.
       Most martial law resolutions in the 104th Congress have 
     applied to classes of bills (e.g., general appropriations, 
     continuing resolutions, debt limit, etc.) rather than to a 
     specific bill.
       By contrast, in the 103rd Congress, the House conducted 
     business under martial law 5 days. Of the 5 resolutions 
     adopted by the House, each was effective for a period of one 
     day and applied to one specific bill or conference report.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member and my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Joe Moakley, for yielding me the time. 
Soon to be chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to talk about this 
martial law rule, and what this rule does is gives the Speaker 
extraordinary power to bring up virtually any legislation, at any time, 
without any advance notice.
  Now, have we not used this same procedure in previous Congresses? 
Yes, we have. But we have done it on a case-by-case basis and we have 
done it sparingly and judicially, to borrow the words of my friend from 
New York.
  Under the Republican control of Congress, martial law has become a 
routine procedure, a routine procedure to block amendments and shut 
down debate. During last year's Government shutdown, the House operated 
under this martial law procedure for 4 continuous months, a third of 
the year.
  This resolution allows the Speaker to consider any legislation under 
suspension of the rules, procedures at any time it allows the 
appropriation bills to be brought to the floor without the 1-day 
layover required under the House rules so that Members can become 
familiar with what is being brought down from the Committee on Rules. I 
lay this out because I wanted to talk about a pattern that has been set 
here.
  Even before this historic Congress began, after the 1994 elections, 
one of the first things that the new majority did was try to move the 
Ethics Committee from the House Administration Committee, which is now 
known as the Committee on House Oversight; from the Ethics Committee to 
the House Administration Committee, which is a partisan committee. So 
what they were trying to do is shut down the voices on a very important 
part of our business here, the ethics of the Members.
  The second thing they did, before we even hit the gavel to begin this 
new Congress and this historic Congress, what they did was to shut down 
the various groups in this institution that were trying to raise their 
voice on behalf of women. The Environmental Caucus, cannot have that; 
Women's Caucus, cannot have that; the Hispanic Caucus, cannot have 
that. Shut it down. The African American Caucus, Black Caucus, shut 
that down. The Democratic Study Group, which was the research arm for 
this institution, bipartisan in nature, mostly Democratically used but 
used by some Republicans, shut that down. So there has been a constant 
narrowing and winnowing of the ability of Members to speak clearly and 
to have their voices heard in this institution.
  Then they went ahead and shut down the Government in order to cut 
Medicare; did it twice. Of course, now we are in the last week, maybe 
10 days, whatever, of this session, and pending and hanging over the 
head of this institution is this cloud about the ethics report done by 
the outside counsel, Mr. Cole. So now today they come to the floor and 
they want to give the Speaker extraordinary powers to move legislation 
and to close this place up without having this released.
  This is the Speaker's hometown paper, the Atlanta Constitution. In 
their editorial, Release the Gingrich Report, $500,000 of taxpayer 
money was spent to put that report together.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that this Congress is about to 
adjourn without the American people knowing what is in that report.
  Listen to what the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, said back 
in 1989 when a similar situation existed for the existing Speaker and a 
report was being done. He said this:

       I think it's vital that we establish as a Congress our 
     commitment to publish that report and to release those 
     documents so that the country can judge whether or not the 
     man second in line to be President, the Speaker of the House, 
     should be in that position.

  He went on to say, ``I cannot imagine going to the country telling 
them, `We've got a $1.6 million report, and, by the way, there's 
nothing in it, but you can't see it.' '' And that is exactly what he is 
telling us now: There is a $500,000 report, half-a-million-dollar 
report, that the outside counsel has put together, but you cannot see 
it.
  What are they trying to hide? What are they trying to hide? If my 
colleagues read the Atlanta Constitution, the Hartford Current, the New 
York Times, and the papers all across this country who have looked into 
this, they will say what they are trying to hide: Serious violations of 
law, tax law, corruption, tax fraud.
  That report would have been released the minute it hit the hands of 
the Republicans if it would have been positive and exonerated the 
Speaker. It is being kept under lock and key because there is something 
they do not want the American people of see.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a right to see it.
  This type of martial law resolution that we have before us today will 
impede our ability to get a fair and an equitable treatment of 
something that is vitally important not only to the country, but to 
this institution. We must lift the cloud on this institution.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution, to vote yes on 
Mr. Lewis's resolution, which will come up later, which will release 
the report of the outside counsel.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was hesitant to rise to make a point of order against 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], referring to matters pending 
before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct which is against 
the rules of the House. I did not do that out of respect for him 
because he did not carry on. But we ought to all pay attention to the 
rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the previous speaker, the minority 
whip, whom I have great respect for, he is certainly a respected member 
of this body, but I really worry about his memory. He is, in fact, a 
member--or was, I should say--a member

[[Page H10932]]

 of the Committee on Rules of the previous Congress, and he voted for 
all of these suspensions of the rules on these suspension days, and, as 
my colleagues know, they were very, very serious matters.
  One was a two-thirds waiver for the Family and Medical Leave Act; 
another, a two-thirds waiver for the unemployment compensation bill; a 
two-thirds waiver for the budget resolution; a two-thirds waiver for 
emergency appropriations for the Brady bill, for the crime bill, for 
the foreign operations appropriations, lobby reform.
  As my colleagues know, I do not think we really ought to get up here 
and criticize each other for trying to expedite the measures of the 
House.
  Second, I would just point out something that was said by Norman J. 
Ornstein, a political scientist, discussing the 104th Congress in 
rollcall back just a couple of days ago. He said, ``The most 
significant Congress in a generation. This is a plenty respectable 
output. Indeed, it ranks with the top Congresses of the past 30 
years.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing tonight. We are trying 
to expedite these procedures. We do not want to leave business undone, 
but we do want to get out of here and go back home where our 
constituents want us. They do not want us inside this beltway.
  So let us get on with the rule, enact it, and do the people's work.
  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 listened with close attention to my dear friend from 
New York, and he is right. He went through one by one the Family Leave 
Act, the suspensions. But each one of those martial law things was for 
specific bills. That is the difference. We do not mind martial law, but 
this is a blanket cover. We do not know what is going to be pulled out 
from underneath this blanket, and that is the only difference I am 
trying to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have urged the 
Speaker, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, and the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut, the chairwoman of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, Nancy ``Stonewall'' Johnson, to release the report 
from the special counsel. We have heard from the Republicans and the 
Speaker himself that he has been exonerated for all these other 
complaints and allegations against him. He never mentions, he never 
mentions that he has been found guilty by the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct on other occasions and investigations.


                             point of order

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order, and I hate to do 
that to my friend.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman from New York is not in order, he is going 
to find out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is referring to matters 
before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and that is 
against the House rules. We need to stay to the germaneness of this 
expedited procedure.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order, if I may.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] on the point of order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. My earlier comments were perhaps not in order, but where 
the gentleman has interjected himself, I am speaking of matters that 
already have been resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct and are no longer pending before the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the exhibit speaks to pending matters 
before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule, and the 
question is whether the matters are properly pending before the House. 
The issue is not just whether they are now or only at a prior time were 
ever before the committee, since the matters are not now properly 
before the House as a question of privilege, and debate on those 
matters, therefore, is not in order at this point.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Is the gentleman saying----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Could we have the exhibit removed?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary 
inquiry of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Matters that have been resolved by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct and are no longer pending before the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Chair is saying, cannot 
be discussed on the floor of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct, so long as that Member 
remains a sitting Member.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, Mr. Speaker, now we cannot even talk about all the 
guilty things that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct found 
the Speaker guilty of.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask that the gentleman 
proceed in order and remind the gentleman that Members should refrain 
from discussing official conduct cases.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, Mr. Speaker, now it appears that the Speaker can 
get up and say that, ``I have been exonerated by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct from all these charges,'' and I cannot 
stand down here and correct the record. Boy, oh boy.
  We all know that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct found 
the Speaker guilty of allowing his senior GOPAC official to act as 
chief of staff in the Speaker's office. We also know that the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct found the Speaker guilty of using the 
House floor to sell videotapes of his own lectures through a 1-800 
scheme. That is all public record.
  We also know that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
found the Speaker guilty of using the House floor to advertise 
political activities of GOPAC--on this floor, using it as a political 
forum. They found him guilty. He also was found guilty of 
telecommunication entrepreneur Don Jones to use the Speaker's office to 
conduct personal business. Just think of that: using the Speaker's 
office to conduct person business. Found guilty, misuse of 
congressional resources to advertise, promote a Caribbean cruise 
sponsored by a private company. Found guilty. Found guilty. Failure to 
disclose financial transactions as required by law.
  Yes, my colleagues. The Speaker--not guilty of all charges.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, clause 14 says that we have to be germane 
to the issue. I would make a point of order that the gentleman's 
delivery is not germane to this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's point of order is well 
taken, and the Chair would ask the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer] to be in order.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on 
the point of order, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman raising a new point of 
order?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am seeking to be recognized on the 
gentleman's point of order and whether it is appropriate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has already ruled on the point of 
order. The point of order was well taken, and the Chair has admonished 
the gentleman from Missouri.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry, if the gentleman from Missouri would yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has yielded for 
a parliamentary inquiry to the gentleman from North Carolina. The 
gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Is the Chair saying that we have no right 
to

[[Page H10933]]

be heard on whether a point of order is appropriate before the Chair 
rules on the point of order? As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, that is 
certainly not the rules of this House. Every party has an opportunity 
to be heard on whether a point of order is properly taken before the 
Chair rules on it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The discussion on the point of order is 
within the discretion of the Chair. When the hair is satisfied that the 
discussion on the point has been adequate, he can rule. In this case, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] stated his point, the 
gentleman from Missouri had his statement. The Chair has ruled.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet and seeking 
the attention of the Chair. I have the right to speak on the point of 
order just like anybody else has the right to speak on the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order has been ruled upon, and 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has yielded to the gentleman 
from North Carolina for a parliamentary inquiry. If the gentleman 
wishes to state a parliamentary inquiry, he may do so. Otherwise, the 
House will proceed in order.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I made the parliamentary 
inquiry. I am asking the Chair to rule on whether I have the right to 
speak on the point of order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. In deference to the gentleman from North Carolina, I 
would like to reclaim my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Go right ahead.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the Chair that perhaps 
the words that I previously spoke about the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] and the coverup that has taken place are not appropriate on 
the rule. But we do not have any other place to talk about it. They 
will not let us get any other place to talk about it.
  So I would like to urge all Members to vote against this rule. I am 
sorry, gentleman from New York, who has been a good friend all 
throughout the years. We have together on various issues; we agree on 
many things.
  But for this reason and this reason only, I am going to ask that 
everybody vote against this rule. Now that is appropriate.
  Now the gentleman from New York, I will yield to him. Now are those 
words appropriate at this time?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer] yielding to me?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I just want an answer, yes or no.
  Mr. SOLOMON. How is the gentleman's cat?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Bear is fine.
  Mr. SOLOMON. My daughter loved the gentleman's speech about his cat 
the other day.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Bear is fine.
  Let us vote down the rule, and let us get the report out of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time to me, and I was very troubled by 
the Chair's ruling, and I am going to tell my colleagues why.
  My understanding is, what we are debating is the martial law rule 
which gives the Speaker the right to bring any resolution to the floor 
whenever he wants to, waiving all the rule and normal procedures.
  Now if that is true, I absolutely do not understand the Chair's 
ruling that something here is not germane. I would think under the 
martial law rule, everything would be germane because it goes to any 
resolution the Speaker could bring to the floor, and I think what this 
resolution is really about is so they can get out of Dodge, as we would 
say out west.
  It is: ``Let's get out of Dodge. It's getting hot in Dodge. Things 
are warming up in Dodge.''
  Whatever it is that we are not allowed to say, the R word, the 
report, but we are not allowed to say it. Oops, sorry, the it word. 
Whatever it is, the hundred pages downstairs is starting to smell. So 
we have got to get out of Dodge.
  Now the problem is, the very first vote when this body reconvenes is 
going to be for the next Speaker.

                              {time}  1815

  Think how it is going to smell then. I think everybody ought to vote 
``no'' on this rule. What in the world is the hustle to run away from 
this place at 100 miles an hour?
  We look at the other side, and they came in here in all their glory 
celebrating. They are going to leave here looking like Dunkirk if they 
pass this thing. So this is martial law to avoid this type of response 
that we are seeing in the Speaker's very own hometown paper. It is 
saying, release that thing downstairs. I guess we cannot say that word. 
Release that.
  I think most people feel it should be released. We are seeing more 
and more reports every day for releasing, and they are saying we have 
to have martial law, we have to get out of here fast, we have to get 
home, and we have to make so much smoke as we run for the door that 
they will not figure out what happened.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years and we have not dealt with this. This is very 
serious. I really thought that the gentleman from Missouri was making a 
great point. I am totally puzzled by the Chair saying that that is not 
germane, because if martial law is not germane to our running out the 
door, to our adjourning this body until next January, I do not know 
what is. When it is adjourning, the question is, what is it running 
from? What is the hurry? Why do we have to have martial law? Why do we 
have to have it on September 24?
  I think we are all beginning to find out, and I think that is why the 
pressure is mounting to get this out, get us gagged, do not allow us to 
talk about anything on the floor. This morning we were told we could go 
outside and talk about it. Is that not wonderful? But I never heard of 
such a thing. I must say, I am very saddened. I have been here 24 
years. I have never seen a performance like this. But it is really 
clear, it is really clear, people want to load the wagons and roll them 
out. I really hope everybody votes ``no''.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, is this not another example of the entreme 
radical agenda of the majority? Is this not another example of the 
radical extremism of the majority?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. It certainly looks to me like we are checking all the 
regular procedures. We want to run away as fast as possible. The 
question is, what are we running from?
  I am very saddened, because I think this is what we are running from. 
We are running from what the Atlanta Constitution is talking about, we 
are running from what many major newspapers are talking about. People 
who vote for this martial law are voting to just set off the guns so we 
can run.
  I would hope that folks would feel that this should be a deliberative 
body where we can discuss things, and especially deal with the cloud 
that is over this House, and is going to remain over this House until 
we act on that R word and get it up here, so we know what it is. Going 
home and saying we did not have time to read it is not going to satisfy 
us.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just do not think it is right to stand up here and 
criticize the President of the United States that way. Let me just read 
one more time from Norman Ornstein, one of the most respected political 
scientists in America. He said, ``The most significant Congress in a 
generation; this is a plently respectable output indeed. It ranks with 
the top Congresses of the past 30 years.'' Guess what, the President of 
the United States signed 65 percent of the contract for America into 
law.
  Do not be so critical of your President.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am moved. The gentleman from New 
York quotes a pundit, saying this is the most significant Congress. It 
reminds me of going to visit friends who have had new babies and 
saying, that is some baby.
  This is a significant Congress. It is significant in that we are 
being asked

[[Page H10934]]

today to waive rules, to impose martial law. Does not the word 
``martial'' get your attention when you hear about this? It gets my 
attention, because what it tells me is that we do not want to slow down 
this process to allow people to listen. What do we not want to let 
people listen to? We do not want to let people listen to our rebuttal 
of what the Speaker has been saying on television lately.
  What I have been hearing him say, and it annoyed me to death, just 
last week I heard him say, I have been exonerated by the Ethics 
Committee. We do not know. We do know he was found quilty, guilty, 
guilty, guilty.


                             point of order

  Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Linder] will state his point of order.
  Mr. LINDER. The gentleman is referring one more time to matters 
before the committee on ethics. I believe that is against the rules of 
the House.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The Chair will hear me this time? I thank 
the Chair.
  I just want to submit to the Speaker that this debate is about 
yielding unprecedented authority to the Speaker of the House. The 
Speaker's integrity, the person to whom we are proposing to yield that 
authority, his integrity is at the heart of the matter. If we cannot 
get to his integrity, then how can we determine whether we ought to be 
yielding these unprecedented, overwhelming authorities to him?
  If we do not like what he was been doing, if he has been out 
disrespecting the House of the United States, then why should we give 
him some unprecedented authority called martial law? That is at the 
very heart. His responsibility, his ethics, are at the very heart of 
the matter.
  I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is germane to the issues and 
the matter before this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WARD. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the gentleman clarify 
his point of order so I can know what it is that I have said to which 
he objects.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear each gentleman on his 
own time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last 10 days or so, 
when the minority party has tried to bring to the floor of this House a 
discussion of matters before the Committee on Ethics, the Chair has 
consistently ruled that not only referring to the matters before the 
Committee on Ethics, but referring to press reports about those matters 
is against the rules of the House.
  The gentleman is standing there with a large print of an editorial 
out of a newspaper that does precisely that: To make the case, in 
print, for the people watching this, about matters before the Committee 
on Ethics. It strikes me that, if the Chair is going to rule that we 
cannot talk about it, the same argument would obtain that just 
displaying it is abusing the rules of the House.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman was responding to my 
saying that the Speaker had been found guilty of a number of ethics 
violations, according to a letter from the Ethics Committee dated 
December 6, 1995.
  I was not referring to the document here displayed. I was referring 
to his allowing the senior GOPAC official to act as the chief of staff 
in the Speaker's office, for which he was found guilty. I was referring 
to abusing the House floor to sell videotapes. That is what I was 
referring to.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LINDER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LINDER. Is the gentleman seeking to address the point of order, 
or is he making another speech? My point was this, that merely having 
that on display is an abuse of the rules of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule, having heard 
the arguments on both sides.
  The Chair would say that the point of order is well taken; that the 
gentleman may debate the advisability of granting generic authorities 
proposed in the pending resolution but may not dwell on the merits of 
measures that might arise under those authorities.
  The recent series of rulings by the Chair rest more squarely on the 
stricture against personalities in debate than on the requirements of 
relevance. With respect to the cases disposed of, todays's standard is 
not a new standard under the precedents. The point is not necessarily 
whether the matter is still pending elsewhere. The point is that the 
matter is not pending on the floor here and now as a question of 
privilege and the point of order is well taken.
  The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] may proceed in order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], 
yield for that purpose?
  Mr. WARD. No. I would like to proceed, if I may.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] may 
proceed in order.
  Mr. WARD. Again, Mr. Speaker, what I was talking about was my 
frustration as a Member of this House in having to vote on a matter 
which gives the Speaker martial law, at a time when I am deeply 
frustrated by watching the television and seeing the Speaker say that 
he has been found innocent 66 times, when, according to the letter of 
the Ethics Committee----
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman point out to me where in 
the entire resolution the words ``martial law'' appear? Could the 
gentleman point out to me where in the resolution the words ``martial 
law'' appear?
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I am using the code.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, it is the effect of the resolution, is to 
give the Speaker the power of martial law.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the point that 
the gentleman has just made, the fact that the Speaker and others have 
advocated the position that they have been exonerated, when in fact, as 
the gentleman has correctly pointed out, on a number of occasions the 
Ethics Committee has found the Speaker guilty and has issued public 
letters from the Ethics Committee so indicating.
  The gentleman has those instances before him, and I think the House 
would like and the American people would like to hear just exactly what 
that record is. I would hope the gentleman would continue with his 
remarks, so he could elaborate on just what is the record of the Ethics 
Committee with regard to the Speaker, as they have released these 
findings in public letter to the country.
  Mr. WARD. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I do share that 
concern. It is very frustrating to talk with people and explain to them 
what has happened when they just quote back to me, well, I saw Speaker 
Gingrich on ``Meet the Press,'' and he said he was exonerated 66 times, 
and the Democrats are just being mean to him.
  By golly, according to the letter of the House Ethics Committee on 
December 6, 1995, I would advise the gentleman from Michigan that I 
share that frustration. We have not been able to make this straight on 
the floor. We have not been able to get, and I cannot talk about what 
we are not able to get, from what I understand.
  That makes no sense to me as a freshman, why I cannot talk about a 
very important matter of public policy, especially when we remember 
what Speaker Gingrich said in this exact same situation not that many 
years ago. I think we ought to be able to make these things open to the 
public.
  So what I am going to do is make open to the public the facts that 
are on

[[Page H10935]]

the record, that are in a letter from the Ethics Committee, that a 
senior GOPAC official was allowed to act as chief of staff in the 
Speaker's office, and that was improper commingling of political and 
official resources.
  Mr. BONIOR. And it violated our rules, as I recall.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] will state his point of order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are prevented from speaking about 
other Members on the other side, about previous ethics violations. It 
is not against the rules of the House to do so?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that it 
is not in order to discuss past or present official conduct cases of 
sitting Members unless the matter is pending before the House as a 
question of privilege.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BONIOR. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the point that the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] made I think is right on target. We are talking 
about extraordinary powers here, giving the Speaker extraordinary 
powers under this resolution.

                              {time}  1830

  The integrity of the person receiving those extraordinary powers is 
indeed germane to this issue.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BONIOR. I ask the Speaker, is it not in order for us to raise the 
record on this gentleman's integrity with respect to what the Ethics 
Committee has found in public letter, in the past, not pending, not in 
the future, what it has made a determination on? Is it not in order for 
us to discuss those violations?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair understands the 
inquiry, and the Chair would say that the gentleman may debate the 
advisability of granting the generic authorities proposed in the 
pending resolution, but may not address personalities, to wit, the 
allegations of misconduct of a sitting Member which have been before 
the Standards Committee.
  Mr. BONIOR. These are findings, Mr. Speaker. These are not 
allegations that the gentleman from Kentucky is discussing. He is 
discussing findings made by the committee. It goes to the character of 
the individual to whom we are about to vote granting extraordinary 
powers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond to the gentleman 
from Michigan's parliamentary inquiry.
  Even if a matter has been disposed of by the House, so long as that 
Member remains a Member of Congress, it constitutes personality in 
debate to further discuss that, and the Chair has responded to the 
gentleman's parliamentary inquiry.
  The gentleman from Kentucky may proceed in order.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HEFNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky yield?
  Mr. WARD. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Could I make a point? I do not want to get involved in 
specifics, but we are considering a piece of legislation that we are 
going to grant to an individual, the Speaker of the House, to 
arbitrarily call bills to this House at his discretion.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not propounding a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFNER. I am making an inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Have him ask a question.
  Mr. WARD. I would be glad to yield him time for purposes of debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has yielded. The 
Chair will listen to the gentleman. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are giving extraordinary 
power to one individual to make decisions, to call bills to this floor, 
that this House will be called upon to vote on, that one individual to 
make decisions that affects over 250 million Americans in this country, 
and we do not even have the right to talk about the ethics of the 
person that will be administering this martial law, whatever you want 
to call it, bill. To me this is absolutely totally----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HEFNER. No, but I have made a statement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has 
expired.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we have many important issues to complete 
before we end the 104th Congress, and I would say we certainly ought to 
have whatever reports ought to be generically made before this House, 
whether on the Speaker or anyone else.
  As we proceed through the business, we are attempting to hurry 
through that and give unprecedented power to the Speaker, one whose 
character is at question. Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we vote 
against that, because it is unprecedented that we should do that. We 
have done that on individual bills, but never have we given a blanket 
martial law exception. What we will have happening----
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I think I only have a few minutes.
  Mr. WALKER. I just wanted to point out to the gentlewoman that we 
have done this at the end of many Congresses.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has the 
time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Would the Chair please admonish the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania not to interrupt the gentlewoman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. And as well the gentleman from Missouri. The 
gentlewoman from North Carolina has the time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we should not rush to judgment or rush to 
leave here without having a deliberative process, and certainly we 
should not rush to give unspeakable authority to one whose character is 
at stake here. Shutting down the Congress was the result of martial law 
before. Do we want to do something even tantamount to that? I would say 
we need to vote against the martial law we are giving to the Speaker.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial 
law resolution to grant Speaker Newt Gingrich extraordinary power in 
the people's House. This legislation will give Speaker Gingrich the 
power to bring up virtually any legislation at any time, with no 
advance notice.
  Martial law is usually granted to military repressive regimes. It 
allows an individual, usually a dictator, to do whatever he or she 
wants to do without following the rule of law, without going through 
the regular processes of government. Do we in fact want to give that 
kind of power to Speaker Newt Gingrich given his past record in this 
104th Congress? The resolution undermines debate in this House, but 
undermining debate is what this Congress has been all about, under the 
leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich.
  This week marks the anniversary of the hearings that Democrats were 
forced to hold outside of this institution, on the lawn of the Capitol, 
because the Republican leadership refused to allow debate on massive 
Medicare cuts that they proposed. The Speaker shut down the Government 
because he was piqued that he did not leave by the front door of the 
President's airplane but left by the back door.
  Keep in mind, martial law, a dictator who can do whatever he or she 
wants to do without going through the regular process. The fact of the 
matter here is

[[Page H10936]]

there is a pattern of silencing Members. We are watching it on this 
floor tonight.
  What they are trying to tell us is that we cannot speak about past 
rulings that have had to do with the Speaker in this House, what his 
record is about. He has been found guilty, that is a fact, in a number 
of the instances from this committee. They refuse to allow us to speak 
about any of this. They refuse to allow us to report on the allegations 
against the Speaker regarding the Speaker's tax fraud. Release this 
report.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. My colleagues, I want to get back to what 
this debate is about. It is about whether we give unprecedented 
authority to the Speaker to bring up any legislation at any time with 
no advance notice, what we call in the vernacular, martial law.
  I tell you, I cannot think of anybody in this House I would less like 
to give unprecedented authority to. If I am thinking about who I am 
going to give some unprecedented authority to, you think I want to give 
unprecedented authority to somebody who would lead people to take 
school lunches out of kids' mouths, to take Medicare away from elderly 
citizens, whose reputation and ethics are at stake and will not allow 
anybody to talk about it, who does not want to fund education programs 
for our children? This is the person we are talking about giving 
unprecedented authority to? I would not think of giving this man 
unprecedented authority and voting for this rule.
  I can think of probably 434 other people in this House I would give 
it to before I would give it to this Speaker.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to the floor of the 
House because I am overwhelmed at how we have run this 104th Congress.
  I think as a freshman I can count beyond 10, but certainly when you 
have a number as large as 10, to know that under Speaker Gingrich we 
have had 10 opportunities to have martial law. That means simply we 
have had 10 opportunities to obliterate the rules of the House, to 
continue to have bills brought to the floor, without any hearings, 
without any review, without any sense of perspective, and now, included 
in that rule that we are now trying to vote, which I ask for people to 
vote against, we now have the refusal of the leadership of the House to 
bring the report that deals with the ethics violation of this Speaker. 
How can we say to the American people that in the course of this 
omnibus, large martial law that we will not be cutting Medicare more, 
we will not be cutting school lunches more, we will not be cutting 
direct student loans? How can we say to them that we will be doing the 
business of the American people?
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask, 10 times is 10 times too many. We do 
not need martial law here in the United States of America. What we do 
need is a report from the ethics counsel that cost $500,000. That is 
what we need, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, with all the allegations that I have made 
as to the Speaker and the ethics, with all the other ones that the 
Members on this side have made, many of which are true, it has amazed 
me that not one Member of the majority party, not one Member, has taken 
to the floor to answer those allegations. Not one Member has taken to 
the floor in support of why the Ethics Committee is not releasing this 
report. Not one Member has justified the secret keeping of this report. 
Not once has one Republican Member taken to the floor to support the 
Speaker.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I pose the question, should Ken Starr release 
prematurely his report? I do not think the answer is yes. Think about 
that.
  But as I have stood here and listened to speaker after speaker on the 
other side of the aisle talk about the unprecedented circumstances 
here, there is no unprecedented circumstance.
  I have before you, and I will be glad to show each and every one of 
you, as I have already done for the record, that Speaker Foley in the 
101st Congress, the 102d Congress, the 103d Congress, in other words, 
over the last 6 years, has been given blanket authority for exactly 
what we are doing here today. There is no unprecedented circumstance 
here at all.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Does that mean some of the very people that got down to 
the well and spoke on this matter voted for rules in the past that gave 
the Speaker this kind of authority?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman was not on the floor earlier, but I cited 
my good friend and gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] who is the 
minority whip, but who was at the time a member of the Rules Committee 
with me sponsoring the rule and carrying the rule on the floor which 
gives the exact blanket authority we are giving here today, along with 
Chairman Moakley who was the chairman at the time. Even my good friend 
Tony Hall who is one of the most respected Members of this body voted 
time and again, 11 different times in the previous Congress, to do 
exactly what we are doing here today.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will yield, but I have to conclude because we have to 
get on with a very important bill. But I yield to the gentleman from 
San Diego, CA.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I understand it, the other side was talking about 
follow the rule of law. After the Jim Wright case, and correct me, the 
gentleman was on the Ethics Committee, there were problems and they did 
not want the same problems to resurface.
  While the Democrats were in power, they rewrote the rules on ethics. 
What I was trying to get to during the parliamentary inquiry before, is 
it not correct that the rule we are following today was written when 
the Democrats were in the majority?

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by citing clause 1 of our rules. It says 
on Mondays and Tuesdays during the last 6 days of the session, you 
shall have this blanket authority. That is what the rule actually says. 
Unfortunately, we cannot get a sine die resolution. We hope to get it 
this Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday at some point.
  So, under normal circumstances, the normal rules of the House, we are 
given this authority to bring up suspension bills after due 
consultation with the minority, giving them 1 hour's notice. We intend 
to do that. We will do it. So we are not violating any rules of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, having said all that, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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 225, 
nays 191, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                               YEAS--225

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan

[[Page H10937]]


     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bunn
     Chapman
     Durbin
     Engel
     Funderburk
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Lincoln
     Oxley
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Roberts
     Studds
     Torres
     Wilson

                              {time}  1906

  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. METCALF 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.

                          ____________________