[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8-H27]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican
Conference, I call up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of
the One Hundred Fourth Congress, including applicable
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted
rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Fourth
Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Fifth Congress, with the
following amendments:
SECTION 1. POSTPONEMENT OF CORRECTIONS VOTES.
In clause 5(b)(1) of rule I, strike subdivisions (E) and
(F), and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``(E) the question of agreeing to a motion to recommit a
bill considered pursuant to clause 4 of rule XIII;
``(F) the question of ordering the previous question on a
question described in subdivision (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
``(G) the question of agreeing to an amendment to a bill
considered pursuant to clause 4 of rule XIII; and
``(II) the question of agreeing to a motion to suspend the
rules.''.
SEC. 2. OBSOLETE REFERENCES TO ``CONTINGENT FUND''.
(a) In clause 8 of rule I--
(1) in the first sentence, strike ``contingent fund of the
House'' and insert in lieu thereof ``applicable accounts of
the House described in clause 1(h)(1) of rule X''; and
(2) in the second sentence, strike ``contingent fund'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``applicable accounts of the House
described in clause 1(h)(1) of rule X''.
(b) In clause 1(c) of rule XI, strike ``contingent fund of
the House'' and insert in lieu thereof ``applicable accounts
of the House described in clause 1(h)(1) of rule X''.
(c) In clause 4(a) of rule XI, strike ``contingent fund of
the House'' and insert in lieu thereof ``applicable accounts
of the House described in clause 1(h)(1) of rule X''.
(d) In clause 6(f) of rule XI, strike ``contingent fund''
and insert in lieu thereof ``applicable accounts of the House
described in clause 1(h)(1) of rule X''.
SEC. 3. DRUG TESTING IN THE HOUSE.
In rule I, add the following new clause at the end:
``13. The Speaker, in consultation with the Minority
Leader, shall develop through an appropriate entity of the
House a system for drug testing in the House of
Representatives. The system may provide for the testing of
any Member, officer, or employee of the House, and otherwise
shall be comparable in scope to the system for drug testing
in the executive branch pursuant to Executive Order 12564
(Sept. 15, 1986). The expenses of the system may be paid from
applicable accounts of the House for official expenses.''.
SEC. 4. POLICY DIRECTION AND OVERSIGHT OF CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
(a) In clause 1 of rule V, strike ``the Speaker and'' in
both places it appears.
(b) In clause 2 of rule V, strike ``the Speaker or''.
SEC. 5. BUDGET JURISDICTION CHANGES.
(a) In clause 1(d)(3) of rule X (relating to the Committee
on the Budget), strike ``congressional budget process'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``budget process.''
(b) In clause 1(g)(4) of rule X (relating to the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight), strike ``Budget and
accounting measures, generally'' and insert in lieu thereof
``Government management and accounting measures, generally,''
SEC. 6. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE.
(a) In clause 1(f) of rule X, strike ``Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``Committee on Education and the Workforce''.
(b) In clause 3(c) of rule X, strike ``Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``Committee on Education and the Workforce''.
SEC. 7. REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL FOR SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN
COMPLAINTS.
In clause 4(d) of rule X--
(a) strike ``The Committee'' and insert in lieu thereof
``(1) The Committee'';
(b) strike ``(1) examining'' and insert in lieu thereof
``(A) examining'';
(c) strike ``(2) providing'' and insert in lieu thereof
``(B) providing'';
(d) strike ``(3) accepting'' and insert in lieu thereof
``(C) accepting''; and
(e) add the following new subparagraph at the end:
``(2) An employing office of the House of Representatives
may enter a settlement of a complaint under the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 that provides for the payment of
funds only after receiving the joint approval of the chairman
and the ranking minority party member of the Committee on
House Oversight concerning the amount of such payment.''.
SEC. 8. SPECIAL AUTHORITIES FOR CERTAIN REPORTS.
(a) In clause 1(b) of rule XI--
(1) designate the existing matter as subparagraph (1); and
(2) add the following new subparagraphs at the end:
``(2) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be
considered as read in committee if it has been available to
the members for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in
session on such a day).
``(3) A report of an investigation or study conducted
jointly by more than one committee may be filed jointly,
provided that each of the committees complies independently
with all requirements for approval and filing of the report.
``(4) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a
Congress sine die, an investigative or oversight report may
be filed with the Clerk at any time, provided that if a
member gives timely notice of intention to file supplemental,
minority, or additional views, that member shall be entitled
to not less than seven calendar days in which to submit such
views for inclusion with the report.''.
(b) In clause 1(d) of rule XI, add the following new
subparagraph at the end:
``(4) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a
Congress sine die, the chairman of a committee may file a
report pursuant to subparagraph (1) with the Clerk at any
time and without approval of the committee, provided that a
copy of the report has been available to each member of the
committee for at least seven calendar days and includes any
supplemental, minority, or additional views submitted by a
member of the committee.''
SEC. 9. COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS ON INTERNET.
In clause 2(e) of rule XI, add the following new
subparagraph at the end:
``(4) Each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible,
make its publications available in electronic form.''.
SEC. 10. INFORMATION REQUIRED OF PUBLIC WITNESSES.
In clause 2(g) of rule XI, amend subparagraph (4) to read
as follows:
``(4) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent
practicable, require witnesses who appear before it to submit
in advance written statements of proposed testimony and to
limit their initial oral presentations to the committee to
brief summaries thereof. In the case of a witness appearing
in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of
proposed testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a
disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program)
of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or
subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year
or either of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or
by an entity represented by the witness.''.
SEC. 11. COMMITTEES' SITTINGS.
In clause 2(i) of rule XI, strike subparagraph (1) and the
designation ``(2)''.
SEC. 12. EXCEPTIONS TO FIVE-MINUTE RULE IN HEARINGS.
In clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI--
(a) strike ``Each'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(A)
Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each''; and
(b) add the following new subdivisions at the end:
``(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting an
equal number of its majority and minority party members each
to question a witness for a specified period not longer than
30 minutes.
``(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting
committee staff for its majority and minority party members
to question a witness for equal specified periods.''.
[[Page H9]]
SEC. 13. REPEAL OF INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENT;
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
STATEMENT REQUIREMENT.
In clause 2(l) of rule XI, amend subparagraph (4) to read
as follows:
``(4) Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution.''.
SEC. 14. FILING OF REPORTS AFTER TIME FOR VIEWS.
In clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI--
(a) in the first sentence, strike ``three calendar days''
and insert ``two additional calendar days after the day of
such notice''; and
(b) after the second sentence, insert the following new
sentence: ``When time guaranteed by this subparagraph has
expired (or, if sooner, when all separate views have been
received), the committee may arrange to file its report with
the Clerk not later than one hour after the expiration of
such time.''.
SEC. 15. COMMITTEE RESERVE FUND.
In clause 5(a) of rule XI, strike ``Any such primary
expense resolution'' and insert in lieu thereof the
following: ``A primary expense resolution may include a
reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of committees. An
amount from such a reserve fund may be allocated to a
committee only by the approval of the Committee on House
Oversight. A primary expense resolution''.
SEC. 16. CORRECTIONS CALENDAR CHANGES.
In clause 4(a) of rule XIII--
(a) strike ``On'' and insert in lieu thereof ``At any time
on'';
(b) strike ``after the Pledge of Allegiance,''; and
(c) strike ``the bills in numerical order which have'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``any bill that has'';
SEC. 17 DYNAMIC ESTIMATION OF EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX
LEGISLATION.
In clause 7 of rule XIII, add the following new paragraph
at the end:
``(e)(1) A report from the Committee on Ways and Means on a
bill or joint resolution designated by the Majority Leader
(after consultation with the Minority Leader) as major tax
legislation may include a dynamic estimate of the changes in
Federal revenues expected to result from enactment of the
legislation. The Joint Committee on Taxation shall render a
dynamic estimate of such legislation only in response to a
timely request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means (after consultation with the ranking minority member of
the committee). A dynamic estimate pursuant to this paragraph
may be used only for informational purposes.
``(2) In this paragraph `dynamic estimate' means a
projection based in any part on assumptions concerning
probable effects of macroeconomic feedback. A dynamic
estimate shall include a statement identifying all such
assumptions.''.
SEC. 18, APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS CHANGES.
In clause 2 of rule XXI--
(a) in paragraph (a), strike ``in any'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``in a'';
(b) amend paragraph (b) to read as follows:
``(b) No provision changing existing law shall be reported
in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making
the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or
possession of information not required by existing law for
the period of the appropriation, except germane provisions
that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of
money covered by the bill, which may include those
recommended to the Committee on Appropriations by direction
of a legislative committee having jurisdiction over the
subject matter thereof, and except rescissions of
appropriations contained in appropriation Acts.'';
(c) amend paragraph (c) to read as follows:
``(c) No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be
in order if changing existing law, including an amendment
making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or
possession of information not required by existing law for
the period of the appropriation. Except as provided in
paragraph (d), no amendment shall be in order during
consideration of a general appropriation bill proposing a
limitation not specifically contained or authorized in
existing law for the period of the limitation.''; and
(d) in paragraph (d), strike ``and amendments not precluded
by paragraphs (a) or (c) of this clause have been
considered''.
SEC. 19. CLARIFYING DEFINITION OF INCOME TAX RATE INCREASE.
(a) In clause 5(c) of rule XXI, add the following new
sentence at the end: ``For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `Federal income tax rate increase' means
any amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c) (d), or (e) of
section 1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate
of tax and thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by any
such section.''.
(b) In clause 5(d) of rule XXI, amend the second sentence
to read as follows: ``For purposes of the preceding
sentence--
``(1) the term `Federal income tax rate increase' means any
amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section
1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and
thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by any such
section; and
``(2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if
it applies to a period beginning prior to the enactment of
the provision.''.
SEC. 20. UNFUNDED MANDATE CLARIFICATION.
In clause 5 or rule XXIII, amend paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
``(c)(1) In the Committee of the Whole, an amendment
proposing only to strike an unfunded mandate from the portion
of the bill then open to amendment, if otherwise in order,
may be precluded from consideration only by specific terms of
a special order of the House.
``(2) In this paragraph, `unfunded mandate' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate the direct costs of which exceed
the threshold otherwise specified for a reported bill or
joint resolution in section 424(a)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.''.
SEC. 21. DISCHARGE PETITION CLARIFICATION
In clause 3 of rule XXVII--
(a) strike ``either a special order of business, or'';
(b) strike ``any public bill or resolution favorably
reported'' and insert in lieu thereof ``a public bill or
resolution reported'';
(c) Strike ``Provided'' the first place it appears and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ``Provided, That a
Member may not file a motion to discharge the Committee on
Rules from consideration of a resolution providing for the
consideration of more than one public bill or resolution, or
admitting or effecting a nongermane amendment to a public
bill or resolution: Provided further''.
SEC. 22. PROHIBITING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE.
In rule XXXII, add the following new clause at the end:
``5. No Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives, or any other person entitled to admission to
the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto by this rule,
shall knowingly distribute any political campaign
contribution in the Hall of the House or rooms leading
thereto.''.
SEC. 23. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES RULE.
(a) Rule LI (Employment Practices) is repealed.
(b) Rule LII (Gift Rule) is redesignated as rule LI.
SEC. 24. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) In clause 5(a) of rule I, insert before the last
sentence the following: ``A recorded vote taken pursuant to
this paragraph shall be considered a vote by the yeas and
nays.''.
(b) In clause 1(h)(1) of rule X, strike ``House Information
Systems'' and insert in lieu thereof ``House Information
Resources.''
(c) In clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI, strike ``the House
Information Systems'' and insert in lieu thereof ``House
Information Resources''.
(d) In clause 2(k)(5)(B) of rule XI--
(1) strike ``a majority of the members of''; and
(2) strike ``determine'' and insert ``determines''.
(e) In clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, insert after ``concurrent
resolution on the budget'' the following: ``(except that a
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday on which the House is in
session shall not be excluded under such section)''.
(f) In clause 4(a) of rule XXII, strike ``indorsed'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``endorsed''.
(g) In clause 6 of rule XXIII, strike ``after the reporting
of the bill by the committee but''.
(h) In clause 4 of rule XLIII--
(1) In clause ``excepted'' and insert in lieu thereof
``except''; and
(2) strike ``rule LII'' and insert in lieu thereof ``rule
LI''.
(i) In clause 13 of rule XLIII, strike ``by House'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``by the House''.
SEC. 25. SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS.
In clause 4(e) of rule X, add the following new
subparagraph at the end:
``(3) Effective as of noon on January 3, 1997, there is
hereby established in the One Hundred Fifth Congress a Select
Committee on Ethics. Effective as of noon on January 3, 1997,
each Member who served as a member of the Standing Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct at the expiration of the One
Hundred Fourth Congress is hereby appointed as a member of
the select committee. A resignation from the select committee
shall be deemed effective upon notice to the House. A vacancy
on the select committee shall be filled by appointment by the
Leader of the party concerned. The select committee shall
have jurisdiction only to resolve the Statement issued by the
Investigative Subcommittee of the standing Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct in the One Hundred Fourth
Congress relating to the official conduct of Representative
Gingrich of Georgia and otherwise report to the House on the
activities of that investigative subcommittee. In the
exercise of that jurisdiction, the select committee shall
possess the same authority as, and shall conduct its
proceedings under the same rules, terms, and conditions
(including extension of the service and authority of the
staff and of the outside counsel commissioned by the
investigative subcommittee under the same terms and
conditions as in the One Hundred Fourth Congress and
effective as of noon on January 3, 1997) as those applicable
to the standing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in
the One Hundred Fourth Congress, except that the select
committee may file reports in separate volumes with the Clerk
when the House is not in session and the time otherwise
guaranteed by clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI
[[Page H10]]
for submission of separate views shall be computed as two
calendar days after the day on which the report is ordered.
Expenses of the select committee may be paid from applicable
accounts of the House. The select committee shall cease to
exist upon final disposition by the House of a report
designated by the select committee as its final report on the
matter, or at the expiration of January 21, 1997, whichever
is earlier.''.
Mr. ARMEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], or his designee, pending which
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the
resolution, all time yielded is for debate purposes only.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to me
under this previous unanimous consent request be conceded to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
(Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today adopts the
Rules of the House from the 104th Congress as the Rules of the House
for the 105th Congress together with some 25 amendments thereto.
Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to concede that the House rules
package certainly is not as bold and as innovative as the package of 31
House Rules changes we offered at the beginning of the 104th Congress,
January 4, 1995. My colleagues will recall that historic day consumed
over 14 hours as we provided for an extended debate and separate votes
on major changes in how this House was going to operate. Among other
things, we provided in that package for the elimination of three
committees and 32 subcommittees, thereby shrinking the size of this
Congress and setting an example for the rest of Government, the Federal
Government down to local levels; a one-third reduction in committee
staff and funding; the elimination of proxy voting in committees; a
three-fifths vote on income tax rate increases; the first ever
comprehensive audit of House finances; term limits on the Speaker and
committee and subcommittee chairmen, like myself, who no longer can
serve more than 6 years as chairman of the Committee on Rules; new
sunshine rules to open committee hearings and meetings to the public,
and to the broadcast media; an overhaul of the administrative
operations of this House.
Mr. Speaker, today's rules package is indeed modest by comparison,
and that is as it should be. We should not have to reinvent the wheel
every 2 years, though we certainly should be willing to realign and to
balance those wheels to ensure that they continue to turn smoothly and
efficiently.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the 104th Congress was the
innovative Congress. The 105th Congress will be the implementation
Congress, both legislatively and procedurally. As chairman of the
Committee on Rules, I made clear from the outset of my chairmanship
that congressional reform is a dynamic, evolutionary and incremental
process, and that we should never become complacent and rest on the
reform laurels of the past. For that reason, we conducted a series of
four hearings in our Committee on Rules last summer entitled,
``Building on Change, Preparing for the 105th Congress'', which now is
starting today.
We sent a questionnaire to all House committee chairmen and to
ranking minority members on that side of the aisle, assessing our past
reforms and soliciting opinions on new reform proposals. We invited all
House Members to testify before the Committee on Rules on their reform
ideas, and some 47 House Members from both sides and both parties
respond today to that invitation with both written and oral testimony
before our committee.
We also heard from outside students of the Congress, from major think
tanks around this country on the basis of our survey and hearings and
further discussions within our Republican Conference and leadership. We
bring this resolution to the House today for your consideration and
your approval.
For the most part, this resolution consists of numerous minor and
technical changes from the rules of the last Congress, but it
nevertheless contains some significant changes which I would like to
briefly summarize at this time.
I will be placing a more detailed section by section summary and
analysis in the Record following my remarks to make a more complete
legislative history. So briefly, let me just say that first we have
proposed a number of rules changes that affect our committees.
Committees may adopt rules or motions to permit extended questioning of
witnesses beyond the usual 5-minute rule, by both Members or staff with
equal time for the majority and the minority parties. Nongovernmental
witnesses at committee hearings will be required to submit with their
written testimony in advance their academic and professional
credentials, and a disclosure by source and amount of Federal grants
and contracts over the last 3 years. The prohibition on committees
sitting while the House is considering amendments would be repealed.
As my colleagues know, we waived that time after time which took up a
great deal of time in this body. So we feel, since both parties agreed
to it last year, that we would repeal it entirely. Inflation impact
statement requirement for committee reports would be repealed, but
replaced by a constitutional authority statement requirement to cite
the specific powers granted to Congress on which the legislation is
based. Dynamic scoring estimates on major tax legislation, designated
by the majority leader, could be included in Committee on Ways and
Means reports for informational purposes only. Committees would be
permitted to file joint reports on investigations or studies jointly
conducted.
Investigation and oversight reports would be considered as read if
available to committee members at least 24 hours in advance of their
consideration.
{time} 1500
Such reports, properly approved, could be filed after the sine die
adjournment of a Congress, provided at least 7 calendar days are
allowed for filing those views.
The time for filing views on the committee reports during a session
would be shortened from 3 to 2 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays, and committees would have the automatic right to file 1
hour after the deadline for such views.
This is a proposal made by the chairman, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, [Mr. Moakley], before the Joint Committee on
Congressional Reform in the 103rd Congress and included in his
chairman's substitute for that bill.
It was a good idea then, Joe, and it is a good idea today.
We did not object to Chairman Moakley's proposal at that time when we
were in the minority, and we certainly are going to offer it today in
the spirit of bipartisanship.
Committees would be required, to the maximum extent feasible, to put
their publications on the Internet. By publications, we intend this to
include written committee materials that are otherwise made available
to the public. That information ought to appear on the Internet.
The omnibus committee funding resolution could include a reserve fund
for unanticipated contingencies that would not be allocated without the
approval of the Committee on House Oversight. Since we are now on a 2-
year committee funding cycle, this only makes good sense. It is not
always possible to project committee needs 2 years in advance.
The name of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
[[Page H11]]
would be changed to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and
the jurisdiction over the presidential budget process would be shifted
from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to the Committee
on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, beyond these changes that affect committees, this
resolution contains a few other provisions that should be noted here
today. The distribution of campaign contributions on the House floor in
the Speaker's lobby and in the cloakrooms would be prohibited by rules
of the House.
The Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader, shall develop,
and this is very important and speaks to the point that our Speaker
Gingrich made earlier this afternoon, that we shall develop a system
for drug testing in the House that is comparable in scope to the system
that is applied in the executive branch since 1986. What this means, in
effect, is that the Speaker may require mandatory or random drug
testing of we Members, officers or employees of the House of
Representatives, which means our staff and anyone employed by the
House, but he shall implement a system at the very least comparable in
scope to the program in effect in the executive branch pursuant to
Ronald Reagan's executive order 12564.
Those tests would be paid for from official expense allowances of
either the Members, the committees or the officers, the departments
that they run.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, the random drug testing has been so
extremely effective in the executive branch, particularly in the
military where illegal drug use dropped, and Members ought to listen to
this, dropped from an average of 25 percent back in the early 1980's--
25 percent of the enlisted personnel were using illegal drugs in one
form or another--it dropped it down to less than 5 percent in just 4
years. I have no doubt that we will accomplish the same results here in
the House.
Mr. Speaker, this rule does not prejudge what means of testing may be
used; that is, whether it should be urine specimen or hair sample. That
will be worked out by the designated entity of the Speaker in
developing this system. This is a natural follow-on to the
Congressional Accountability Act, in which the Congress has applied to
itself the same workplace standards that apply to the executive branch
and the private sector. We should be no different than others when it
comes to ensuring a drug-free workplace, and this is going to help us
do that.
The definition of income tax rate increases for purpose of the three-
fifths vote rule and the prohibition on retroactive tax rate increases
would be confined to specified sections of the Internal Revenue Code;
namely, those sections dealing with individual, corporate, and
alternative minimum tax rates.
More flexibility would be allowed for considering Correction Day
bills out of order on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month, and
for postponing demands for rollcall votes on any amendments or motions
to recommit.
Approval by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight of proposed financial settlements in
Congressional Accountability Act employee complaints would be codified
in House rules. That means there is going to have to be a bipartisan
agreement as to those settlements. That is the way it should be, to
make sure we stick within our budgetary allocations.
The right of the majority leader to offer a motion to rise and report
on appropriation bills, once the final lines have been read, would have
priority over other motions to amend, and so-called made-known
limitation amendments would be prohibited under the new rules.
Finally, the membership and authority of the Ethics Committee of the
104th Congress with respect to matters concerning the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] would be extended through January 21 of this
year to permit it to report any recommendations to the House.
Mr. Speaker, that completes my summary of the substantial provisions
of this resolution. There are other minor and technical changes that
have been recommended by the Parliamentarian that are included in this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following document titled
``Highlights of Provisions in Proposed House Rules Package for the
105th Congress.''
The material referred to is as follows:
Highlights of Provisions in Proposed House Rules Package for the 105th
Congress
Committees could adopt rules or motions to permit
designated majority and minority members to question
witnesses for more than five-minutes (but not more than 30-
minutes per side, per witness), and to permit questioning of
witnesses by majority and minority staff on an equal time
basis.
Non-governmental witnesses would be required to submit in
advance, as part of their written testimony, a curriculum
vitae and a disclosure by source and amount of Federal grants
and contracts received by them and the organizations they
represent for the current and preceding two fiscal years.
The inflation impact statement requirement for committee
reports would be repealed and replaced by a required
``Constitutional Authority Statement'' citing the specific
powers granted to Congress on which the legislation is based.
Dynamic scoring estimates could be included in Ways and
Means Committee reports on major tax legislation designated
by the majority leader, for informational purposes.
Committees would have automatic leave until an hour after
midnight on the second day after approving a measure or
matter to file their report with the Clerk if notice has been
given of intention to file views.
Committees would be authorized to file joint investigative
and oversight reports with other committees, and to file
properly approved investigative and oversight reports after a
Congress has adjourned provided at least 7 calendar days are
allowed for the filing of additional and minority views.
Omnibus committee expense resolutions could include a
``reserve fund'' for unanticipated committee expenses, with
specific allocations subject to approval.
Committees would be required to put their publications on
the Internet to the maximum extent feasible.
The definition of ``income tax rate increases'' would be
tied to specific tax rates in the IRS Code (or higher new tax
rates) for purposes of the three-fifths vote rule on such
increases and the prohibition on retroactive tax rate
increases.
The distribution of campaign contributions on the House
floor and rooms leading thereto (cloak rooms and Speaker's
Lobby) would be prohibited.
The Speaker, in consultation with the Minority Leader,
would develop through an appropriate House entity a system
for drug testing that may include any Member, officer or
employee and that is otherwise comparable in scope to the
present system for drug testing in the Executive Branch.
The Ethics Committee of the 104th Congress would be
extended through Jan. 21, 1997, as a select committee to
complete action on its subcommittee's report on
Representative Gingrich.
____
Section-by-Section Summary of Draft Resolution Adopting House Rules for
the 105th Congress
Sec. 1. Postponement of Corrections Votes: The Speaker's
current authority to postpone votes on final passage of a
measure would be extended to any manager's amendment, and any
motion to recommit a bill (or any previous question thereon),
considered under the Corrections Day process. (Rule I, clause
5(b)(1)))
Sec. 2. Obsolete References to ``Contingent Fund'': Five
obsolete references to the House ``contingent fund'' would be
changed to ``applicable accounts of the House''. (Rule I,
clause 8, in two instances; Rule XI, clauses 1(c), 4(a), and
6(f))
*Sec. 3. Drug Testing in the House: The Speaker, in
consultation with the Minority Leader, shall develop through
an appropriate entity of the House a system for drug testing
that may include any Member, officer or employee of the House
and that is otherwise comparable in scope to the present
system for drug testing in the Executive Branch. (Rule 1,
clause 13).
Sec. 4. Policy Direction, and Oversight of Chief
Administrative Officer: The Speaker's authority over the
assignment of functions, policy direction and oversight of
the CAO would be eliminated, leaving such authority
exclusively with the House Oversight Committee, as it now is
with respect to other House officers. (Rule V, clause 1)
Sec. 5. Budget Jurisdiction Changes: The Budget Committee
would have jurisdiction over ``budget process, generally''
(and not just ``congressional budget process''). The
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's jurisdiction
over ``budget and accounting measures, generally,'' would be
changed to ``government management and accounting measures,
generally.'' (Rule X, clauses 1(d)(3) and 1(g)(4))
*Sec. 6. Designating Committee on Education and the
Workforce.--The name of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities would be changed to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. (Rule X, clauses 1(f) and
3(c))
Sec. 7. Requirement of Approval for Settlement of Certain
Complaints: The provisions of section 2 of H. Res. 401
adopted by the House in the 104th Congress (April 16, 1996)
would be extended to the 105th Congress. The provisions
require the joint approval of the chairman and ranking
minority member of
[[Page H12]]
the House Oversight Committee of the amount of a proposed
settlement of a complaint under the Congressional
Accountability Act before the employing House office can
enter a settlement. (Rule X, clause 4(d))
Sec. 8. Special Authorities for Certain Reports: (a)
proposed investigative or oversight reports would be
considered as read if available to committee members at least
24 hours in advance of their consideration; (b) committees
would be authorized to file joint investigative or oversight
reports with other committees on matters on which they had
conducted joint studies or investigations; (c) committees
would be authorized to file investigative or oversight
reports after the final adjournment of a second session if
they were properly approved and at least 7 calendar days are
permitted for filing vies; and (d) committee final activity
reports could be filed after an adjournment without formal
approval if at least 7 calendar days are permitted for filing
views. (Rule XI, clauses 1(b) and (d))
Sec. 9. Committee Publications on Internet: Committees
would be required, to the maximum extent feasible, to make
all committee publications available in electronic form.
(Rule XI, clause 2(e))
Sec. 10. Information Required of Public Witnesses: Each
committee shall require, to the greatest extent practicable,
witnesses appearing in a non-governmental capacity to include
with their advance written testimony a curriculum vitae and
disclosure by source and amount of Federal government grants
and contracts received by them and any entity they represent
for the current and preceding two fiscal years. (Rule XI,
clause 2(g))
Sec. 11. Committees' Sittings: The current prohibition on
committees sitting while the House is considering legislation
under the five-minute rule (except by leave of the House),
would be repealed. (Rule XI, clause 2(I))
Sec. 12. Exceptions to Five-Minute Rule in Hearings:
Committees would be authorized to adopt a special rule or
motion (a) to permit selected majority and minority members
(in equal numbers) to take more than 5-minutes in questioning
witnesses, but not more than 30 minutes per side, per
witness; and (b) to permit the questioning of witnesses by
staff provided that staff for the minority is given equal
time and opportunity to do so. (Rule XI, clause 2(j)(2))
Sec. 13. Repeal of Inflation Impact Statement Requirement;
Establishment of Constitutional Authority Statement
Requirement: The current requirement for inflation impact
statement in committee reports on bills would be repealed. A
new ``Constitutional Authority Statement'' would be required
in committee reports citing the specific powers granted to
Congress by the Constitution on which the proposed enactment
is based. (Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4))
Sec. 14. Filing of Reports After Time for Views: The period
for filing views on reports would be changed from three full
days after the day on which a bill or matter is ordered
reported to three days counting the day on which the matter
is ordered reported. Moreover, a committee would have the
automatic right to arrange to have until an hour after
midnight on the third day to file its report with the Clerk
if intention to file views is announced. (Rule XI, clause
2(l)(5))
Sec. 15. Committee Reserve Fund: Committee primary expense
resolutions reported by the House Oversight Committee may
include a reserve fund for unanticipated expenses provided
that any allocation from such fund to a committee is approved
by the House Oversight Committee. (Rule XI, clause 5(a))
Sec. 16. Corrections Calendar Changes: The Corrections Day
rule would be amended to permit consideration of Corrections
bills at any time on a Corrections Day (as opposed to
immediately after the Pledge), and to permit bills to be
called up in any order from the Calendar (as opposed to only
in the numerical order in which they appear on the Calendar).
(Rule XIII, clause 4(a))
Sec. 17. Dynamic Estimation of Effects of Major Tax
Legislation: A report by the Ways and Means Committee on
major tax legislation (as designated by the majority leader
in consultation with the minority leader) may include an
estimate of the change in revenues resulting from the
enactment of the legislation on the basis of assumptions that
estimate the probable dynamic macroeconomic feedback effects
of such legislation. The Joint Tax Committee would be
required to produce such an estimate if requested by the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Such estimates
shall be for informational purposes only. (Rule XIII, clause
7)
Sec. 18. Appropriations Process Changes: No provision could
be reported in a general appropriations bill, or considered
as an amendment thereto, making the availability of funds
contingent on the receipt or possession of information not
required by existing law except germane provisions that
retrench expenditures. The current right of the Majority
Leader or a designee to offer the motion to rise and report
at the end of the reading of appropriations bills for
amendment would be clarified to ensure that the motion could
not be preempted by the offering of regular amendments. (Rule
XXI, clause 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d))
Sec. 19. Clarifying the Definition of Income Tax Rate
Increase: The definition of Federal income tax rate increases
for purposes of the rules requiring a three-fifths vote on
such increases and prohibiting retroactive income tax rate
increases would be narrowed to include only increases in
existing specific statutory Federal income tax rates in the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (sec. 1 (a)-(e), sec. 11(b), or
sec. 55(b)) or adding new income tax rates to the highest of
such specific income tax rates. (Rule XXI, clause 5 (c) and
(d))
Sec. 20. Unfunded Mandate Clarification: The current rule
permitting an amendment to strike an unfunded mandate from a
bill unless otherwise precluded by a special order of the
House would be clarified by specifying that the reference to
section 424(a)(1) of the Budget Act is to a ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' whose direct costs exceed the
threshold amounts specified in that section of the Budget
Act. (Rule XXIII, clause 5(c))
Sec. 21. Discharge Petition Clarification: The existing
discharge rule would be amended to clarify that petitions may
be filed on resolutions from the Rules Committee providing
for the consideration of any unreported or any reported
measure (not just those reported ``favorably''), that such
special rules may provide for the consideration of only one
measure, and that the special rule may not provide for the
consideration of non-germane amendments to such a measure.
(Rule XXVII, clause 3)
Sec. 22. Prohibiting the Distribution of Campaign
Contributions in the Hall of the House: No Member, officer,
or employee of the House could knowingly distribute campaign
contributions on the House floor or rooms leading thereto.
(Rule XXXII, clause 5)
Sec. 23. Repeal Obsolete Employment Practices Rule: The
House ``Employment Practices'' rule, which has been replaced
by the Congressional Accountability Act, would be repealed,
and Rule LII (Gift Rule) would be redesignated as rule LI.
(Rule LI)
Sec. 24. Technical Amendments: (a) A recorded vote taken
pursuant to clause 5(a) of rule I (postponement of certain
votes) shall be considered a vote by the yeas and nays; (b)
and (c) Obsolete references to the ``House Information
Systems'' would be changed to the ``House Information
Resources''; (d) The procedures for a committee vote on
whether to close an investigatory hearing because testimony
might tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person would
be changed to clarify that the hearing would not be closed if
a majority of those voting (a committee majority being
present)--instead of a majority of committee members--
determine that the evidence or testimony would not tend to
defame, degrade or incriminate any person. (Rule XI, clause
2(k)(5)(B); (e) The layover requirement for budget committee
reports on budget resolutions would be conformed to those for
other committee reports to the extent that Saturdays, Sundays
or legal holidays on which the House is in session would be
counted as days of availability of the report. (Rule XI,
clause 2(1)(6)); (f) The spelling of ``endorsed'' would be
corrected in rule XXII, clause 4(a); (g) The rule giving
special protections to Members who have pre-printed their
amendments in the Congressional Record would apply to any
measure under consideration and not just to those reported by
a committee. (Rule XXIII, clause 6); (h) The word
``excepted'' would be changed to ``except'' before ``as
provided in rule LI (Gift Rule)'' in clause 4 of rule XLIII;
and (I) the words ``by House'' would be changed to ``by the
House'' in clause 13 of rule XLIII (relating to the non-
disclosure oath or affirmation required for access to
classified information).
*Sec. 25. Select Committee on Ethics: The Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct of the 104th Congress would be
re-established in the 105th Congress as a select committee
for a period ending on January 21, 1997, for the purpose of
completing its work on the report isued by its subcommittee
involving the official conduct of Representative Newt
Gingrich.
*Denotes changes from summary and GPO ``Committee Print'' of
resolution released on Friday, January 3, 1997.
____
Section-by-Section Analysis of Resolution Adopting House Rules for the
105th Congress
Introduction: As in the past, the introductory paragraph of
the resolution adopts the rules of the previous Congress, in
this case the 104th Congress, together with applicable
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted
House Rules in the previous Congress, as the Rules of the
House of the new Congress (the 105th Congress), together with
the amendments listed in the resolution. In the case of this
resolution, following this introductory paragraph are 25
sections containing direct amendments to the Rules of the
104th Congress, listed generally in the order in which the
Rules are amended, from Rule I through Rule II.
Section 1. Postponement of Corrections Votes: Clause
5(b)(1) of House Rule I (``Duties of the Speaker'') currently
lists those matters on which the Speaker may postpone a
demand for a rollcall vote until later in the same day or for
up to two legislative days. These include votes on the
previous question and on passing a bill. On January 20, 1995,
the House adopted H. Res. 168, abolishing the Consent
Calendar and replacing it with a new Corrections Calendar on
which the Speaker could place bills that had been reported
from committees and placed on the Union Calendar. The
Corrections Calendar is called on the second and fourth
Mondays of each month, and bills called from it are subject
to one hour of debate, are not subject to amendments except
committee amendments or amendments offered by the chairman of
[[Page H13]]
the primary committee or a designee, are subject to one
motion to recommit with or without instructions, and require
a three-fifths vote for passage. The amendment proposed by
this section would extend the Speaker's right to postpone
votes to amendments offered to Corrections bills and to the
motion to recommit. (See section 16 below for other
Corrections Calendar changes.)
Section 2. Obsolete References to the ``Contingent Fund:''
When the Rules of the 104th Congress were adopted, the term
``contingent fund'' of the House was generally replaced by
the term ``applicable accounts of the House.'' However, some
instances of the use of the term ``contingent fund'' were
overlooked at that time. The purpose of this section is to
replace the remaining for obsolete references to the
contingent fund.
Section 3. Drug Testing in the House: This section would
amend House Rule I (``Duties of the Speaker'') by adding a
new clause 13 that requires the Speaker, in consultation with
the Minority Leader, to develop a system for drug testing in
the House that may include testing of any Member, officer or
employee and that is otherwise comparable in scope to the
system for drug testing in the Executive Branch pursuant to
Executive Order 12564. Moreover, it authorizes expenses for
the new drug testing system to be paid from the applicable
accounts of the House as official expenses. The policy of the
Drug-free Workplace Program in the Executive Branch is to
test applicants for certain positions classified as
``sensitive,'' relating to national security, law
enforcement, public health or safety, etc. Periodic random
testing is also required for incumbents of these positions.
The Executive Branch system authorizes the head of each
agency to designate such other employees as the employer
deems appropriate for such testing according to specific
criteria. The Executive system does not require testing of
elected officials (the President and Vice President), but
cabinet officers and most sub-cabinet, Senate-confirmable
officials are ``preferred'' for testing (except where
impractical). In the case of the Executive Office of the
President, which includes the White House, all applicants for
employment are pre-tested, and most employees are designated
for periodic, random testing. Nothing in this section should
be construed as pre-determining or precluding what means of
testing may be chosen by the House (whether by hair sample or
urine specimen). The standard of comparability with the
Executive system refers only to the scope of persons to be
tested.
Section 4. Policy Direction and Oversight of Chief
Administrative Officers: This section strikes the Speaker as
one of two entities providing policy direction and oversight
of the Chief Administrative Officer, thereby leaving this
responsibility exclusively with the House Oversight
Committee, as it now is with respect to other House officers.
Section 5. Budget Jurisdiction Changes: The jurisdiction of
the Budget Committee is changed by striking ``congressional
budget process'' and inserting in lieu, ``budget process.''
The jurisdiction of the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee is changed by striking ``budget and accounting
measures, generally,'' and replacing it with ``Government
management and accounting measures, generally,'' The intent
of this is to give the Budget Committee jurisdiction over the
President's budget process as well as the congressional
budget process, and thereby to avoid duplication with the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee in this area. This
change will not alter Government Reform and Oversight's
existing legislative jurisdiction over such matters as
government management and reorganization, the Office of
Management and Budget's management, regulatory, and other
coordinating functions, or the General Accounting Office.
Section 6. Designating Committee on Education and the
Workforce: The name of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities would be changed to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
Section 7. Requirement of Approval for Settlement of
Certain Complaints: This section incorporates the language of
section 2 of H. Res. 401, 104th Congress, adopted by the
House on a voice vote on April 16, 1996. Since a simple House
resolution loses its force and effect at the end of a
Congress, it was decided in this instance to incorporate its
provisions in the standing Rules of the House for the 105th
Congress. The section requires that before any financial
settlement can be entered into by an employing office of the
House with an employee under the Congressional Accountability
Act, the amount of the proposed settlement must be jointly
approved by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
House Oversight Committee which has responsibility for
monitoring House expenditures from various accounts to ensure
they remain within amounts budgeted.
Section 8. Special Authorities for Certain Reports: (a) The
first subsection provides that if a proposed investigative or
oversight report has been made available to the members of a
committee at least 24 hours prior to its consideration
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when
the House is in session), it shall be considered as read. The
purpose of this provision is to both encourage the advance
distribution of such reports and to avoid prolonged delays
that could result if any member demanded that the report be
read in full. Since such reports, unlike bills, are not read
by section or paragraph for amendment, this in no way affects
the right of members to offer amendments to any portion of
the report once it has been considered as read. (b) A report
on an investigation or study conducted jointly by two or more
committees could be filed jointly with the House. This in no
way alters the requirement that each committee must act
individually in compliance with House rules, including a
majority quorum to approve the report and the opportunity and
time for filing supplemental, minority, or additional views
by members of each committee if requested at the time of the
report's approval. (c) An investigative or oversight report
could be filed by a committee with the Clerk after the sine
die adjournment of the last regular session of the Congress,
and members would have seven calendar days in which to file
their views to be included with the report if timely notice
is given of the intention to file views. ``Timely notice'' is
the same as required under existing House rules: the notice
must be given at the time of approval of the report. Such
authority to file in the past has been secured by unanimous
consent of the House or special resolution. This will obviate
the need for special leave of the House for filing a
report when the House is not in session. Moreover, this
extends to seven calendar days time for filing views in
recognition of the fact that it will probably take longer
for members of the committee to develop and submit their
views if the Congress had adjourned and they are away from
their Washington offices. (d) The final activity reports
of committees may be filed after the adjournment sine die
of the last regular session of a Congress without approval
of the committee, provided seven calendar days are allowed
for the filing of views. The current rule for activity
reports is an anomaly in that it does not technically
allow for filing an unapproved reports. However, the
practice of filing such reports has long been recognized
as a practical matter since such reports usually are not
drafted until after a Congress has finally adjourned. The
right to file views with such reports has always existed,
though only recognized and utilized in the last several
congresses. This only changes that right to the extent
that it expands to seven calendar days the time in which
such views may be submitted, dating from the day on which
the report is made available to the members.
Section 9. Committee Documents on the Internet: This
section requires House committees, ``to the maximum extent
feasible,'' to make their ``publications'' available in
electronic form. The purpose of this section is to encourage
committees to make every effort practicable to ensure that
what is available to the public in printed form also be made
available electronically. It is expected that, early in the
105th Congress, further guidelines will be developed between
the Committee on House Oversight, House Information
Resources, and various committees, outlining what materials
should be made available and on what web sites. As a general
rule of thumb, the term ``publications'' should be
interpreted to mean printed materials of the committee which
are generally made available for distribution to the public.
Section 10. Information Required of Public Witnesses:
Committees shall require, to the greatest extent practicable,
that non-governmental witnesses include as part of their
written testimony that is already required by House Rules to
be submitted in advance, both a curriculum vitae and a
disclosure by source and amount of federal grants and
contracts received by them and any organizations they
represent at that hearing in the current and preceding two
fiscal years, to the extent that such information is relevant
to the subject matter of, and the witness' representational
capacity at, that hearing. The purpose of these new
requirements is to give committee members, the public, and
the press a more detailed context in which to consider a
witness' testimony in terms of their education, experience,
and the extent to which they or the organizations being
represented have benefited from Federal grants and contracts
related to their appearance. It is not the intention of this
section, for instance, to require individuals to disclose the
amounts of Federal entitlements they have received, such as
from Medicare or Social Security or other income support
payments or individual benefits, or to require farmers to
disclose amounts received in crop or commodity price support
payments. Instead, the disclosure requirement is designed to
elicit information from those who have received Federal
grants or contracts for the purpose of providing the
government or other individuals or entities with specified
goods, services, or information. While failure to comply
fully with this requirement would not give rise to a point of
order against the witness' testifying, it could result in an
objection to including the witness' written testimony the
hearing record in the absence of such disclosure.
Section 11. Committees' Sittings: The prohibition on
committees' sitting while the House is considering amendments
under the five-minute rule is repealed. This provision had
originally been repealed at the beginning of the 103rd
Congress, but was reinstituted with the adoption of House
Rules at the beginning of the 104th Congress. Because the
requirement was waived by the House almost daily given the
realities of committee and House floor scheduling, it was
found to be impractical and impossible to enforce. This
repeal should in no way be construed as authorizing
committees to sit while the House is conducting a rollcall
vote
[[Page H14]]
with the limited, 15-minutes in which to respond. The
current prohibition on committees' sitting while there is
a joint, House-Senate session or meeting would be
retained.
Section 12. Exceptions to Five-Minute Rule in Hearings:
Committees would be given the discretion, either by committee
rule or motion, to provide an exception to the current 5-
minute rule limitation on members' questioning of witnesses.
The rule or motion could permit designated majority and
minority party members or staff to question witnesses for a
period longer than their usual, 5-minute entitlement. It is
the clear intent of this rule that any such time be equally
divided between the majority and minority parties. In the
case of member questioning, not more than 30 minutes per
party of such extended questioning could be used for any
witness. A motion under this House rule would not be
privileged for any member of a committee to offer. Instead,
it would be at the discretion of the chair to recognize a
member to offer such a motion. While the rule does not
specifically limit staff questioning to 30 minutes per side,
it is not expected that committees would grant a longer
period for staff questioning unless all committee members
present have first had an opportunity to question the
witness.
Section 13. Repeal of Inflation Impact Statement
Requirement; Establishment of Constitutional Authority
Statement Requirement: The current House Rule requirement
that committee reports on public measures include a detailed,
analytical statement on whether the legislation would have an
inflationary impact on prices and costs in the operation of
the national economy, would be repealed. The provision would
be replaced by a requirement that committees include in their
reports on public bills and joint resolutions a
``constitutional authority statement'' citing the specific
powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution to enact
the proposed law. It is expected that committees will not
rely only on the so-called ``elastic'' or ``necessary and
proper'' clause and that they will not cite the preamble to
the Constitution as a specific power granted to the Congress
by the Constitution. A point of order would not lie against
consideration of a bill so long as the report on the measure
includes a ``constitutional authority statement'' that cites
specific powers in the Constitution granted to the Congress
on which the committee claims measure is based. A point of
order would not lie on grounds that the authority statement
is otherwise inadequate, inaccurate, or constitutionally
unsound, since it is not within the province of the Chair, by
House precedent and practice, to rule on questions of
constitutionality.
Section 14. Filing of Reports After Time for Views: The
current three-day time-frame for filing views on committee
reports would be reduced to two days after the day on which
the measure or matter is ordered reported. Moreover,
committees would have the automatic right to file their
reports with the Clerk up to one-hour after the expiration of
this time period, provided that a request had been made to
file views. Two things should be noted: first, the right for
late filing of a report is not automatic if no opportunity to
file views has been requested; and, second, the rule requires
that committees ``arrange'' with the Clerk for late filing
when views have been requested. They should not expect that
the Clerk's office will be open late every night to receive
filed reports. Finally, committees may file sooner than the
expiration of the second day if they know that all views have
been received. They should therefore advise committee members
to notify them by a time certain (preferably later on the day
of approval) if they intend to file views since a request
made by any member protects the right of all members to file
views.
Section 15. Committee Reserve Fund: This section authorizes
the Committee on House Oversight to include with its
biennial, primary expense resolution for committees a
``reserve fund'' for unanticipated committee expenses. The
actual allocation of any money from the reserve fund would be
subject to approval by the House Oversight Committee. This is
similar to a provision contained in the Senate's biennial
committee funding resolution. Since it is sometimes difficult
to accurately project total expenses for a two-year period
given unexpected developments and demands on a committee over
the course of a Congress, this reserve fund is designed to be
used in such extraordinary circumstances without the need for
a supplemental expense resolution. Committees should not
expect that this reserve fund will be readily available for
all committees to tap at any time. Instead, it is anticipated
that it will be relatively limited in amount for use only in
extraordinary, emergency or high priority circumstances, and
that any proposals for its allocation will be carefully
scrutinized and coordinated at the highest levels before it
is put to a vote by the House Oversight Committee. Other
committee requests beyond their initial, biennial budget
authorization will still require a supplemental expense
resolution to be approved by the House.
Section 16. Corrections Calendar Changes: This section
would make two changes in the order of consideration of bills
from the Corrections Calendar. (See section 1 above for an
explanation of the Corrections Calendar and changes made in
the postponement of certain votes on Corrections bills.)
First, it would no longer be required that the Corrections
Calendar be called immediately after the Pledge of Allegiance
on a Corrections Day (the second and fourth Tuesdays of each
month). It could be called at any time on a Corrections Day.
Second, it would no longer be required that bills on the
Corrections Calendar be called in the numerical order in
which they appear on the Corrections Calendar. They could be
called in any order, so long as they have been on the
Calendar for at least three legislative days. The main
purpose of these changes is to permit the Leadership, in
working with committee chairmen, to have the maximum
flexibility possible in scheduling both Corrections bills and
Suspension bills on such days.
Section 17. Dynamic Estimation of Effects of Major Tax
Legislation: This section would permit the House majority
leader, after consultation with the minority leader, to
designate certain legislation as ``major tax legislation.''
It is anticipated that the designation would be in the form
of a publicly-released letter from the majority leader to the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The designation in
turn would authorize the Committee on Ways and Means to
include in its report on the legislation a dynamic estimate
of changes in Federal revenues expected to result from
enactment. The Joint Committee on Taxation shall only provide
such an estimate to the Ways and Means Committee in response
to a timely request from its chairman (after consultation
with the ranking minority member). Such estimates shall be
for informational purposes only. This means that in no way
are they to be depended upon or looked to for purposes of
enforcement or scorekeeping under the terms of the
Congressional Budget Act. ``Dynamic estimate'' is defined as
meaning a projection based in any part on assumptions
concerning the probable effects of macroeconomic feedback
resulting from the enactment of the legislation. The estimate
shall include a statement identifying all such assumptions.
Section 18. Appropriations Process Changes: This section
makes two changes regarding the consideration of
appropriations bills. First, it would make clear that the
Appropriations Committee could not report, nor could an
amendment be considered by the House, that makes the
availability of funds contingent upon the receipt or
possession of information by the funding authority if such
information is not required by existing law. This is designed
to prohibit the consideration of so-called ``made known''
provisions and amendments which in the past have been used as
a technical loophole to circumvent the prohibition on
legislating in an appropriations measure. The second
provision would make clear that, once the final lines of a
bill have been read for amendment, and it is in order to
consider so-called limitation amendments, other amendments
could not be offered as a means of preempting the right of
the majority leader or a designee to offer the privileged
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the
bill to the House. This simply makes clear that the right
granted to the majority leader to offer the motion to rise
and report during the limitation amendment process has
precedence over any motion to amend.
Section 19. Clarifying Definition of Income Tax Rate
Increase: This section clarifies the definition of ``income
tax rate increases'' for the purposes of clauses 5(c) and (d)
of House Rule XXI which require a three-fifths vote on any
amendment or bill containing such an increase, and prohibits
the consideration of any amendment or bill containing a
retroactive income tax rate increase, respectively. A
``federal income tax rate increase'' is any amendment to
subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1 (the
individual income tax rates), to subsection (b) of section 11
(the corporate income tax rates), or to subsection (b) of
section 55 (the alternative minimum tax rates) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which (1) imposes a new
percentage as a rate of tax and (2) thereby increases the
amount of tax imposed by any such section.
Thus, paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule XXI clause 5 would
apply only to specific amendments to the explicitly stated
income tax rate percentages of Internal Revenue Code sections
1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 11(b) and 55(b). The rules are
not intended to apply to provisions in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report merely because
those provisions increase revenues or effective tax rates.
Rather, the rules are intended to be an impediment to
attempts to increase the existing income tax rates. The rules
would not apply, for example, to modifications to tax rate
brackets (including those contained in the specified
subsections), filing status, deductions, exclusions,
exemptions, credits, or similar aspects of the Federal income
tax system and mere extensions of an expiring or expired
income tax provision. In addition, to be subject to the rule,
the amendment to Internal Revenue Code section 1(a), 1(b),
1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 11(b), or 55(b) must increase the amount of
tax imposed by the section. Accordingly, a modification to
the income tax rate percentages in those sections that
results in a reduction in the amount of tax imposed would not
be subject to the rule.
Section 20. Unfunded Mandate Clarification: This section
clarifies that the right to offer a motion to strike an
unfunded mandate provision from a bill, unless precluded by
special order of the House, applies to unfunded Federal
intergovernmental mandates that exceed the threshold
contained in section 424(a)(1) of the Budget Act. The clause
being amended (clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) merely referenced
the applicable section of
[[Page H15]]
the Budget Act and did not make clear that its reference is
to intergovernmental mandates as opposed to private section
mandates.
Section 21. Discharge Petition Clarification: This section
makes clear the original intent of permitting discharge
petitions on resolutions from the Rules Committee was for the
purpose of a resolution making in order the consideration of
a single measure that has been introduced for at least 30
legislative days (and not multiple measures), and that such a
resolution may only make in order germane amendments to such
a measure. Without this clarification, the intent of allowing
discharge petitions on resolutions from the Rules Committee
could completely distort the purposes of the discharge rule
by making in order completely unrelated matters. Members
should be fully aware when signing a discharge petition that
it is being confined to the subject matter of the bill being
made in order for consideration by the resolution they are
being asked to discharge from the Rules Committee.
Sec. 22. Prohibiting the Distribution of Campaign
Contributions in the Hall of the House: House Rule XXXII
(``Of Admission to the Floor'') would be amended by adding a
new clause 5 prohibiting the knowing distribution of campaign
contributions in the Hall of the House or rooms leading
thereto by any Member, officer, employee or other person
having floor privileges. The ``rooms leading thereto'' are
commonly understood under the rule as being the majority and
minority cloakrooms and the Speaker's Lobby.
Section 23. Repeal of Obsolete Employment Practice Rule:
House Rule LI, relating to House Employment Practices, is
repealed as obsolete because it has been replaced by the
provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public
Law 104-1). House Rule LII, the Gift Rule, is consequently
redesignated as Rule LI.
Section 24. Technical Amendments: This section makes nine
technical amendments to the Rules of the 104th Congress for
purposes of the Rules of the 105th Congress, as follows:
(a) A recorded vote taken pursuant to clause 5(a) of rule I
shall be considered a vote by the yeas and nays. This in no
way changes the existing threshold for demanding a recorded
vote, but simply avoids a possible second vote on the same
question if someone should demand the Yeas and Nays.
(b) and (c) Two references to the ``House Information
Systems'' are replaced by its redesignated name, ``House
Information Resources.''
(d) This subsection clarifies the provisions for closing
investigative hearings if it is asserted that any information
to be disclosed may tend to defame, degrade or incriminate
any person. Whereas a quorum for taking testimony (which may
be as few as two of the members) is required to vote on
closing an investigative hearing for such purposes, the
current rule goes on to read that the hearing may only be
kept open if a majority of members of the committee, a
majority being present, determine that it would not tend to
defame, degrade or incriminate any person. The proposed
amendment strikes ``a majority of the members of,'' leaving
the subsection to read: ``only if the committee, a majority
being present, determines that such evidence or testimony
will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any
person.'' In short, this would restore the concept of
majority, rather than super-majority rule by requiring that a
majority of those voting (rather than a majority of the total
membership of the committee), a majority being present, are
sufficient to keep the hearing open.
(e) This subsection clarifies that the layover period for
reports on budget resolutions shall include days on which the
House is in session (including any Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday), thereby conforming it to the language that applies
to the layover period for other committee reports.
(f) This subsection corrects the spelling of the word
``endorsed'' in clause 4(a) of rule XXIII.
(g) This subsection would amend clause 6 of rule XXIII to
ensure that certain rights of Members to offer amendments in
the Committee of the Whole if they have been pre-printed in
the Congressional Record would apply to unreported as well as
reported bills.
(h) This subsection amends clause 4 of rule XLIII (Code of
Official Conduct) in two ways: first, by changing the word
``excepted'' to ``except,'' and secondly, by changing the
reference to the ``Gift Rule'' from rule LII to rule LI (see
section 22 above).
(i) This subsection would replace the term ``by House'' to
``by the House'' in clause 13 of rule XLIII (Code of Official
Conduct)
Sec. 25. Select Committee on Ethics: This section would
extend until January 21, 1997, the membership and authority
of the Committee on Standard of Official Conduct of the 104th
Congress as a select committee of the 105th Congress for the
purpose of taking final action on its subcommittee report on
the conduct of Representative Gingrich. Any vacancies would
be filled by the majority or minority leaders concerned.
The provision is necessary since the Committee of the 104th
Congress officially expired at noon on January 3rd, 1997, and
thus has no authority in the new Congress to make any
recommendations or report to the House on the pending case.
The new select committee will be considered to have been
created at noon on January 3rd to ensure continuity.
____
Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 1997.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my understanding
of the proposed change to clause 5 (c) and (d) of Rule XXI of
the Rules of the House, regarding the definition of income
tax rate increase.
Specifically, subsections (c) and (d) of Rule XXI clause 5
are clarified by defining ``Federal income tax rate
increase.'' A ``federal income tax rate increase'' is any
amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section
1 (the individual income tax rates), to subsection (b) of
section 11 (the corporate income tax rates), or to subsection
(b) of section 55 (the alternative minimum tax rates) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which (1) imposes a new
percentage as a rate of tax and (2) thereby increases the
amount of tax imposed by any such section.
Thus, subsections (c) and (d) of Rule XXI clause 5 would
apply only to specific amendments to the explicitly stated
income tax rate percentages of Internal Revenue Code sections
1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 11(b) and 55(b). The rules are
not intended to apply to provisions in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report merely because
those provisions increase revenues or effective tax rates.
Rather, the rules are intended to be an impediment to
attempts to increase the existing income tax rates. The rules
would not apply, for example, to modifications to tax rate
brackets (including those contained in the specified
subsections), filing status, deductions, exclusions,
exemptions, credits, or similar aspects of the Federal income
tax system and mere extensions of an expiring or expired
income tax provision.
In addition, to be subject to the rule, the amendment to
Internal Revenue Code section 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e),
11(b), or 55(b) must increase the amount of tax imposed by
the section. Accordingly, a modification to the income tax
rate percentages in those sections that results in a
reduction in the amount of tax imposed would not be subject
to the rule.
These rules are designed as a barrier to attempts to
increase the existing income tax rates. Had the House rules
included subsections (c) and (d) since 1989, they would have
applied to the creation of the 36% and 39.6% income tax rates
and 26% and 28% alternative minimum tax rates in the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. They would also have
applied to the proposed creation of a 36% income tax rate in
H.R. 4210, as passed by the Congress in 1992 and vetoed by
President Bush. Subsection (c) would have applied as well to
the creation of the 31% income tax rate and 24% alternative
minimum tax rate in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990.
I would appreciate your confirmation of this understanding.
Thank you again for your and your staff's ongoing assistance
to the Committee on Ways and Means. With best personal
regards,
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
____
House Rules Committee
solomon releases comparative legislative data for 103rd & 104th
congresses
Washington, D.C.--Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.
Solomon (R-NY) today released comparative legislative data
for the 103rd and 104th Congresses that, in his words,
``demonstrate that the new Republican Congress has been both
more open and more deliberative than the Democrat-controlled
103rd Congress.''
Solomon observed, ``While we enacted fewer laws than the
previous Congress, most objective observers agree that this
has been the most productive Congress in at least a
generation. Obviously, the productivity of a Congress cannot
and should not be measured by the number of laws enacted but
rather by their thrust and direction. The laws we enacted in
the 104th Congress have set a dramatic new course for the
government. Moreover, the data show that we spent more time
considering legislation in the 104th Congress under a more
open and deliberative process.''
The data, compiled by the Rules Committee staff, show that
the 104th Congress enacted 333 measures into law compared to
465 in the 103rd Congress. However, when non-substantive
commemoratives enacted in the 103rd Congress (like ``National
Clown Week''), which were banned in the 104th Congress, are
subtracted from total public laws, the number of substantive
enactments is much closer--384 laws in the 103rd Congress
compared to 333 in the 104th Congress.
The more open process in the 104th Congress is borne out in
the data compiled by the Rules Committee staff. While the
House passed 611 bills in the 104th Congress, using 4 hours
of session per bill, in the 103rd Congress the House passed
757 bills with 2.5 hours of floor time per bill.
Recorded votes per bill passed were also up in the 104th
Congress--with 2.2 votes per bill passed compared to 1.4
votes per bill passed in the 103rd Congress.
A further indication that the House was more deliberative
in the 104th Congress is reflected in the percentage of
unreported measures passed by the House. While 29% of the
measures passed by the House in the 104th Congress had not
been reported by a committee, 39% of the measures passed in
the 103rd Congress were never reported.
Further enhancing House deliberations was the amendment
process provided by special
[[Page H16]]
rules reported from the Rules Committee. Open or modified
open rules for amendments in the 104th Congress comprised 57%
of total rules compared with 46% open or modified open rules
in the 103rd Congress.
According to Solomon, ``The House was able to produce its
impressive track record of legislative accomplishments in the
historic 104th Congress more because of, rather than in spite
of, the substantial streamlining and down-sizing in its
structure, resources and operations at the beginning of the
new Congress.'' The opening day House reforms in the 104th
Congress resulted in the reduction of 3 committees and 32
subcommittees, a reduction of 684 committee staff (-34%), and
a reduction in overall appropriations for the House in the
two-year cycle of $122.9 million from the 103rd Congress.
Solomon concluded, ``I think we have demonstrated that the
Republicans have been able to legislate and govern with
common sense while at the same time setting an example for
the rest of the government that down-sizing and economizing
on operations can enhance rather than hinder the ability to
provide more effective and efficient government for the
American taxpayer.''
COMPARATIVE LEGISLATIVE DATA FOR THE HOUSE IN THE 103RD AND 104TH
CONGRESSES
[Compiled by House Rules Committee Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd 104th
Item Congress Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days in Session............................... 265 289
Hours in Session.............................. 1,887 2,445
Average Hours Per Day......................... 7.1 8.5
Total Public Measures Reported................ 544 518
Total Public Measures Passed.................. 757 611
Reported Measures Passed...................... 462 437
Unreported Measures Passed.................... 295 174
Unreported Measures as Percent of Total....... 39% 29%
Total Public Laws Enacted..................... 465 333
Commemorative Measures Enacted................ 81 0
Commemoratives as Percent of Total Laws....... 17% 0%
Substantive Laws (Total Laws Minus 384 333
Commemoratives)..............................
Total Roll Call Votes......................... 1,094 1,321
Roll Call Votes Per Measure Passed............ 1.4 2.2
Congressional Record Pages.................... 22,575 24,495
Record Pages Per Measures Passed.............. 29.8 40.1
Session Hours Per Measure Passed.............. 2.5 4
Open/Modified Open Rules...................... 46 (44%) 86 (57%)
Structured/Modified Closed Rules.............. 49 (47%) 43 (28%)
Closed Rules.................................. 9 (9%) 22 (15%)
Committees/Subcommittees...................... 23/118 20/86
Committee Staff............................... 2,001 1,317
-------------------------
Appropriations for House (in millions)........ $1,477,945 $1,355,025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The public measures referred to above are public bills and joint
resolutions. Four reported public measures were defeated in each
Congress; 78 reported public measures remained on the Calendars of the
House at the end of the 103rd Congress; 77 at the end of the 104th.
Sources: ``Resume of Congressional Activity,'' Daily Digest,
Congressional Record; ``Survey of Activities,'' Committee on Rules;
Congressional Research Service reports on ``Committee Numbers, Sizes,
Assignments and Staff,'' and ``Legislative Branch Appropriations;''
House Calendars.
Adopting House Rules for a New Congress: The Turn of the Century Turn
From Open, Rules Committee proposals to Closed, Majority Caucus
Recommendations
(By Don Wolfensberger)
Introduction: George Galloway, in his History of the United
States House of Representatives, observes that, ``the
customary practice in post bellum days, when a new House met
was to proceed under general parliamentary law, often for
several days, with unlimited debate, until a satisfactory
revision of former rules had been effected.'' (p. 48)
Galloway goes on to cite examples of such extended debate
on the rules for a new Congress, for instance, that after the
revision of the 1880 general rules (which included making the
Rules Committee a permanent standing committee of the House):
``Two days were consumed at the beginning of the 48th
Congress (1883), 4 days at the 49th (1885), 6 days at the
51st (1889), 9 days at the 52d (1891), and 6 days at the
opening of the 53rd Congress (1893).'' (Id.)
And Galloway concludes this discussion as follows: On three
of these occasions 2 months or more elapsed before the
amended code was finally adopted, in striking contrast to the
celerity with which the old rules have been rushed through in
recent times. (Id.)
Prior to 1880, rules revisions were reported from the
Select Committee on Rules (if one had been appointed for that
Congress), and these proposed changes were debated under an
open amendment process. Even after the Rules Committee became
a standing committee in 1880, this practice apparently
continued for well over a decade. However, neither the
available histories of the House and the Rules Committee or
the precedents pinpoint the exact Congress in which this
practice was abandoned in favor of considering House Rules
recommended by the majority party caucus under a closed
amendment process.
The first hint we get of a change is in A History of the
Committee on Rules, a 1983 Rules Committee print, in which it
is noted that, ``The rules of the House were not
substantially altered between 1895 and 1910, when the rules
were amended directly on the House floor to strip Speaker
Cannon of his membership, chairmanship and appointment
authority of the Rules Committee and the committee was
enlarged from 5 to 10 members, elected by the House. (p. 81)
A few pages later, in discussing the Democrats' retaking of
the House and pounding the final nail in the coffin of ``Czar
Speaker,'' by providing for the election of all committees by
the House, the book notes that the rules resolution making
that and other changes had been ``agreed upon in the
Caucus.'' (p. 99) And the footnote to that observation states
the following: It was customary at this time for the majority
party's candidate for the chairmanship of the Rules Committee
to introduce changes in the House rules, agreed upon by the
Caucus. (Id.)
But nowhere in any of the commentary of Galloway or the
Rules Committee History covering the years between 1895 and
1911 is the origin of this custom identified. To better pin
this down, a search was made of the House Journals between
the 53rd Congress (1893-94) and the 60th Congress (1907-08).
Below is a running account of the adoption of House Rules at
the beginning of each of those Congresses.
The 53rd Congress (1893-95): On August 8, 1893, the House
adopted a resolution authorizing the Speaker to appoint a
Committee on Rules and the temporary adoption of House rules
from the preceding Congress which were referred to the Rules
Committee for recommendations for any further changes in the
new Congress. On August 29, 1892, Representative Catchings
(D-Miss.), the second ranking majority member on the Rules
Committee (Speaker Crisp was the chairman), reported back a
resolution making 14 recommended changes the rules of the
previous Congress. Catchings offered a motion, by unanimous
consent, to proceed to consider the rules resolution by
paragraph for amendment, with 5 minutes of debate allowed for
and against each amendment. He then moved the previous
question on his resolution. Representative Thomas Brackett
Reed (R-ME), the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee
(and its former chairman and House Speaker from 1889-91),
made the point of order that is was not in order to move
the previous question on the resolution. The Speaker
(Crisp) overruled the point of order saying the previous
question was in order. Catchings nevertheless withdrew his
order of business resolution and the House proceeded to
debate the resolution containing the rules changes
recommended by the Rules Committee.
On August 30th, Catchings propounded a unanimous consent
request to close debate on the rules resolution at 2 p.m.
that day and to then proceed to consider amendments to the
resolution by paragraph under the five-minute rule. There was
no objection, and the House proceeded to consider amendments
on August 31, and September 1, 2, and 6. It is apparent from
the Journal's summary of amendments that the entire body of
House Rules was open to amendment, and not just the 14
changes recommended by the Rules Committee. On September 6,
Rep. Burrows (R-MI), the second-ranking minority member of
the 5-member Rules Committee, offered a final substitute to
in effect adopt the Rules of the 51st Congress with one
change. The substitute was rejected, 65 to 149, and the House
subsequently adopted the rules package as amended by voice
vote.
The 54th Congress (1895-97): On December 2, 1895, when
Republicans had retake control of the House, the House
adopted H. Res. 5, adopting the rules of the 51st Congress
(the last Republican Congress) as the rules of the 54th
Congress, ``until otherwise ordered.'' On January 10, 1896,
Rep. Henderson (R-IA), the second-ranking Republican on the
Rules Committee, called-up the first of two reports (Nos. 29,
120) reported by the Rules Committee to amend House Rules,
Henderson asked unanimous consent that, after consideration
of the proposed amendments was completed for amendment, the
House then proceeded to consider amendments to the rules,
beginning with Rule, I, Numerous amendments were considered
on January 10th and 11th. On January 23rd, the House took up
the second of the Rules Committee reports (No. 120),
considering of three additional amendments. It too was
subject to numerous amendments, one of the final of which was
an amendment by the minority to substitute the rules of the
53rd Congress (when the Democrats were last in control). It
was rejected. Because the various amendments recommended by
the Rules Committee was considered and disposed of
individually, as with the January 10th report, there was no
vote on final adoption.
55th Congress (1897-99): On March 15, 1897, Rep. Henderson
(R-IA), the second-ranking Republican on the Rules Committee,
called-up a resolution adopting the rules of the 54th
Congress as the rules of the 55th Congress ``until further
notice.'' The resolution was debated but not opened to
amendment. Rep. Henderson moved the previous question, at
which point an attempt was made to offer an amendment on
grounds that the previous question does not exist when the
House is operating under general parliamentary law. The
Speaker overruled the point of order saying the previous
question does exist under general parliamentary law of the
House. The previous question was then adopted, 182-154, and
the resolution was subsequently adopted by voice vote. That
is no indication of any subsequent Rules Committee action on
reporting a further revision in the rules.
56th Congress (1899-1901): On December 4, 1899, Rep. John
Dalzell (R-PA), the second-ranking Republican on the Rules
Committee (with Speaker Reed's retirement, Rep. Henderson had
become the new Speaker and chairman of the Rules Committee),
called up a resolution adopting the rules of the 55th
Congress as the rules of the 56th Congress. This time the
resolution carried no phrases (``until otherwise ordered'' or
``until further notice) holding out the expectation of
further recommendations from the Rules Committee. The
resolution was debated without amendments being entertained,
after which Rep. Dalzell moved the previous question. The
previous question was adopted by voice vote, after which the
resolution was adopted, 178 to 159.
57th Congress (1901-03): On December 2, 1901, Rep. Dalzell
called up H. Res. 2, adopting the rules of the 56th Congress
as the
[[Page H17]]
rules of the 57th Congress with four modifications: (1)
carrying forward the special orders of 1900 regarding the
consideration of pension, claims and private bills: (2)
converting a Select Committee on the Census into a standing
committee; (3) creating a Select Committee on Industrial Arts
and Exhibitions; and (4) continuing a Select Committee on
Documents. After debate on the resolution, Rep. Dalzell moved
the previous question which was adopted, 180-143. Rep.
Richardson (D-TN) then offered a motion to commit the
resolution to the Committee on Rules when it was appointed.
The motion was rejected, 143 to 186. A demand was then made
to divide the question on the resolution and both parts were
adopted by voice vote.
58th Congress (1903-05): On November 9, 1903, Rep. Dalzell,
still the second ranking Republican on the Rules Committee
(Rep. Joe Cannon had been elected Speaker and thus chairman
of the Rules Committee) offered H. Res. 1, adopting the rules
of the 57th Congress as the rules of the 58th Congress
together with two modifications: (1) carrying forward the
special orders of 1900 on the consideration of pension,
claims and private bills; and (2) converting the Select
Committee on Industrial Arts and Exhibitions into a standing
committee. After debate, the previous question was ordered by
voice vote and the resolution was adopted, 193 to 167.
59th Congress (1905-1907): On December 4, 1905, Rep.
Dalzell called up H. Res. 8 adopting the rules of the 58th
Congress as the rules of the 59th Congress with one
modification, carrying forward the special orders of 1900 on
the consideration of pension and claims bills. After debate,
the previous question was ordered, 228 to 196, and the
resolution was subsequently adopted by voice vote.
60th Congress (1907-1909): On December 2, 1907, Rep.
Dalzell called up H. Res. 28, adopting the rules of the 59th
Congress as the rules of the 60th Congress. After debate, the
previous question was ordered, 199 to 164, after which the
resolution was adopted, 198 to 160.
61st Congress (1909-1911): Notwithstanding Galloway's claim
that no significant rules changes were adopted between 1895
and 1910, the facts indicate otherwise with respect to the
opening day of the 61st Congress. The beginning of this
Congress marked the opening round in the revolt against
Speaker Cannon by Republican insurgents and the minority
Democrats. On opening day of the 61st Congress, March 16,
1909, when the usual resolution adopting the rules of the
previous Congress as the rules of the new Congress was
offered, the Republican insurgents joined with the Democratic
minority to defeat the previous question in order to offer
their own substitute rules package offered by Minority Leader
Champ Clark (D-MO). The Clark substitute would have limited
the powers of the Speaker to appoint committees and also
would have enlarged the Rules Committee. Clark immediately
moved the previous question on his substitute. But Cannon,
anticipating this action, had conspired with a junior
Democrat, Rep. John Fitzgerald of New York, who protested
being gagged and urged defeat of the previous question on the
Clark substitute so that he could offer his own amendments to
the rules. Fitzgerald prevailed by defeating the previous
question, 180 to 203. He then offered his amendments that
then provided for a new, unanimous consent calendar,
strengthened the Calendar Wednesday rule, and permitted the
motion to recommit to be offered by the opponents to a
measure (previously the right to recommit was exercised by
the bill's manager), and prohibited the Rules Committee from
issuing a rule denying this right. The Fitzgerald substitute
was adopted when 23 Democrats joined with him and the regular
Republicans.
Conclusions: While it appears from the above study that the
Rules Committee discontinued its role of reporting revisions
in House Rules at the beginning of a Congress after the 54th
Congress (1895-97), and the House thereafter began to simply
adopt the rules of the new Congress on opening day under the
hour-rule, with no amendments allowed, it was not until the
61st Congress that any serious effort was made to defeat the
previous to provide for the consideration of substantial
changes in the rules resolution offered by the majority. But
even then, the effort was a bipartisan one, forged between
the minority Democrats and the insurgent Republicans, and it
was defeated by a further bipartisan compromise offered by a
few minority Democrats and the regular Republicans.
It was not until 1911, when ``King Caucus'' emerged to
replace ``Czar Speaker,'' that the Caucus fully assumed the
role of reporting significant rules changes on opening day.
And the precedent had already been set with the previous
question fight of 1909 to use the attempted defeat of that
procedural motion to highlight the minority's rules
alternative rules package.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 11th time I have been sworn in as a Member
of Congress. To this day, I still get chills when I approach the
Capitol or if I move onto the floor of the House. Every single day we
go to work in a Chamber where America pushed the frontier and rebuilt
the Nation, they put the GI bill through for college education, a place
where we paid to land a man on the Moon. From the podium behind me
Franklin Roosevelt spoke of a day which will live in infamy, and from
this Chamber democracy has given ordinary men and women more rights and
more dignity than this world has ever known.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a special place. All of us are privileged to
serve here. But with that privilege comes responsibility, a
responsibility to hold this House and this Nation to the highest
possible standards. We are not defined simply by the laws we pass, but
by the example we set.
If we want an America where laws are respected, where the rights of
the minority are protected, and where the voices of all are heard, we
have got to have a House that respects the law, that protects the
minority and allows those voices to be heard; because, Mr. Speaker,
every time we look the other way when somebody breaks the rules, we
just do not damage the integrity of this House, we send a message to
every child in Michigan, in California, in Georgia, that lying pays,
that cheating works, that wrongdoing goes unpunished. Sometimes saying
we are sorry just is not enough.
We are here this afternoon to decide the rules of this House, but the
rules have no meaning if they are ignored and betrayed. If we want an
America that rewards virtue and punishes wrongdoing, we need to have a
Congress that rewards virtue and punishes wrongdoing.
I am afraid we have taken a tremendous step backward here today.
There is an ethical cloud hanging over this House that will only get
darker in the days to come. We could have postponed today's vote for
Speaker, but the majority voted against it. Soon this tragedy will move
from the Halls of Congress to the court of public opinion. Sometime in
the next few weeks, the nonpartisan outside counsel will present the
facts to the American people in an open public hearing. Finally the
American people will be able to decide for themselves who is right and
who is wrong.
This case goes to the heart of our constitutional system. At issue is
the ethical character of the man second in line to the Presidency.
These are serious charges, and the Ethics Committee must be allowed
adequate time to spell out the truth.
In recent days some in the Republican leadership have tried to force
a rush to judgment, but today the outside counsel himself requested the
committee be given additional time to consider this case. Subsequently
we will be offering a motion today that gives the Ethics Committee
adequate time to fully resolve this case. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
We have heard a lot of talk about freedom and democracy here today,
but sadly we moved away from those principles in the last Congress.
Instead of open public hearings we saw closed-door meetings. Instead of
free speech we saw closed rules that shut down debate. Instead of
freedom of expression we saw one case after another when voices were
shut down in this House. We even saw the Government shut down twice to
force an opinion through.
But this rules package before us today makes the problem worse, not
better. We cannot build a foundation of trust by giving House
committees slush funds to conduct sham investigations, by rolling back
minority rights, or by completely ignoring the other side. But that is
what in many respects this rules package does. It is shameful and it is
wrong. Let us turn good words into good deeds. Let us work together on
something that really matters.
We all know that the current campaign finance system is completely
undermining our democracy. We believe it is time to get money out of
politics and return power to the people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I
urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question.
If the previous question is defeated, we will offer a Democratic
reform package that strikes seven sections in the proposed Republican
House rules package. It requires that sufficient time be provided for
the Ethics Committee to complete its investigation of the Speaker's
pending ethics violation and it requires the House to consider
substantive campaign finance legislation within the next 100 days.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment.
[[Page H18]]
The motion to commit referred to is as follows:
Motion to Commit
Mr. _____ moves to commit the resolution H. Res. __ to a
select committee comprised of the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same to
the House forthwith with only the following amendments:
In section 25, after ``standing Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in the One Hundred and Fourth Congress''
insert the following ``and related matters brought forth by
the Investigative Subcommittee''.
In the last sentence of section 25, strike ``, or at the
expiration of January 21, 1997, whichever is earlier''.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous
question. Then I urge my colleagues to support the request of the
outside counsel and support the motion to make sure the Ethics
Committee is not railroaded, is not pressured, and has the time to
spell out the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Cardin, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Michigan, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as the ranking member of the executive
subcommittee that is charged with the investigation of the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. Our subcommittee has worked in a
professional, bipartisan manner. We are proud of the product that we
have brought forward to the full Ethics Committee and to this House. We
want to make sure that the process continues in a professional,
bipartisan manner.
On behalf of all four members of the committee, two Democrats and two
Republicans, we are disappointed by one provision in the rules package
that puts a limit on the remaining time in which we can work, which is
unrealistic. The special counsel has told us that that limit could very
much impact the manner in which we carry out our work and prevent us
from continuing in a professional, bipartisan manner.
I want to stress the point: We come as two Democrats and two
Republicans, in a bipartisan manner, and ask the Members to change one
provision in the rules package.
I am very disappointed. A month ago the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss], and myself met with the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Armey] and
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt,] in an effort to avoid this
day, when we are on the floor without a rule on which we are in
agreement in carrying out the work of our committee. We recognized at
that time that there may be a need for us to continue our work into the
new Congress. We were assured that we would have bipartisan
cooperation. Unfortunately, that broke down today. I regret that.
We understand that putting January 21 as the deadline for our
subcommittee jeopardizes our work. Let me quote, if I might, from Mr.
Cole, our special counsel, a person who is far more objective than, I
would say, anyone else in this Chamber:
In analyzing the time necessary for a sanction hearing and
a vote on the House floor, I have recommended a schedule that
will allow this to be accomplished in a fair and orderly
fashion. In doing that, however, it will be necessary for the
vote on the House floor to occur after January 21, 1997. Each
member of the subcommittee has carefully considered the
recommended schedule and agrees it is the best course in
which to proceed. This schedule has been communicated to
leaderships of both parties and unanimously recommended by
the subcommittee and the special counsel that it be adopted.
If we keep this time limit in, let me just explain some of the
problems we are going to run into. We do not have adequate time to
prepare for the public sanction hearing. In the last several days and
weeks we have been totally consumed, because of what has happened out
there, with partisan attacks by both Democrats and Republicans. We have
tried to keep this on a bipartisan basis. Give us the time to complete
it in a bipartisan fashion.
{time} 1515
It forecloses certain options that the full committee may need to do.
Now, let me tell you, we know more, the four of us, than any of the
other Members of the House as to what is involved in this
investigation. It may be necessary for us to call additional witnesses.
The schedule makes it impossible for us even to consider that. It is
wrong for the full House to deny the ethics committee those options. It
is wrong for the full House to say that we cannot have adequate time to
prepare our report so you know what you are doing when we vote.
I want to thank the Democratic leadership because they are going to
give us a motion to commit that will give us a chance to return to a
bipartisan understanding on bringing this matter to a successful
conclusion. I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on that motion to
commit. The only change, the only change is to remove that January 21
deadline so that we have adequate time in order to do our work in a
bipartisan basis.
Let me just tell my colleagues one other thing: Some people say, why
could we not get it done earlier, why have we not done things quicker.
Special counsel has also referred to that in his report where he is
very clear about the work of the four members of our subcommittee. We
have worked every day on this issue. We have met with Members. We have
talked among ourselves. And we have worked in what we think is the best
interests of this House.
We think that we deserve the respect of this House to give us the
time that we say that we need. This is not coming from the two
Democrats, this is coming from the two Democrats and the two
Republicans. For the life of me, I do not understand how this House can
deny the ethics committee the time that it needs in order to complete
this work. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], distinguished chair of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, someone who has done yeoman
work that we are all so proud of in this body.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the rules package, and I regret that we must discuss this on the floor
of the House. But it is because the Ethics Committee has two
responsibilities. One is to the completion of the work before it, and
the other is to the Members of the House.
I would just like to comment on this issue of timetable. Between
Christmas and New Year's the subcommittee members and the counsel and
the full committee members spent many, many hours discussing this issue
on the phone. We spent 3 days specifically negotiating a time schedule
that then was issued under my name, the name of my ranking member and
of our counsel. It was bipartisan, supported by Democrats and
Republicans and the special counsel alike, and it was a good-faith
effort.
At the time we were negotiating it, I wanted desperately to have the
hearings before today's opening, and I felt it was possible. I also
have great respect for the other members of the committee and
particularly for the members of the subcommittee and yielded to their
desire not to try to do it before the 9th. Our early discussions, since
they involved also extending the membership on this committee of a
number of Members who had announced they were not going to serve,
focused on the date of January 14. We knew that was tight, but that was
our focus as a result of my interest.
When I learned that the leadership was comfortable with the 21st, we
all agreed on the 21st. I reluctantly, and some others reluctantly, but
at that time we all said, this gives us ample time; and so we gave the
House notice. Members made their plans, and we issued the schedule.
Now, there is concern at this time about two things, one is the
ability and the right of the subcommittee to prepare itself for the
hearings. I have talked at length with the special counsel, and that
problem can be dealt with. We are going to be able to give the
subcommittee and the special counsel time, the time they request before
the hearings. It does leave us a little pressed in terms of writing the
report.
During our discussions, it was never brought up that we might need 6
days to write the report. I regret that. I do understand that. This is
not a matter of malice. This is a matter, this is the kind of thing
that sometimes happens.
[[Page H19]]
But it does give us some significant time to write that report, and in
fact much of that report is already written.
I understand it has to be brought together, different umbrella
language, and so on and so forth, but I believe the report can be
issued. I commit to the Members that as soon as the hearings are
complete, which I think will be at least a week before the vote, once
those hearings are complete, I will commit to every Member of this body
that they can call the ethics committee and we will provide the
transcripts of the two counsels' full statement. They will have plenty
of time to read and understand the basis on which the allegations were
brought forward. That will mean that they will only need to read and
understand the package of sanctions offered by the committee and that
is a much smaller body of reading.
I believe because we will honor the 3-day layover that they will have
the time they need and we will have the opportunity to vote knowingly
after an orderly process by sticking to the additional timetable. I do
appreciate the pressure this puts on the counsel and his staff in terms
of writing the report. We discussed that even 2 days after Christmas. A
lot of writing has been in progress, a lot of writing has been done. We
will work together as we always have and, if we feel we face, at the
end, an insurmountable barrier, we will try to deal with that, too. But
in fairness to the Members of the House and the schedules they have
laid and to our responsibility to conclude this matter, I urge support
of the rules package today.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington, [Mr. McDermott], distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment, a
motion to commit because I believe the committee must have an orderly
process, one that is fair and allows sufficient time for both the
Members and the American people to understand the importance of these
proceedings. Special counsel, as you heard from my colleague from
Maryland, has proposed to the subcommittee, which by unanimous vote has
accepted and supported the counsel's recommendation, for a process that
will allow the House and this process to go in an orderly and fair way.
I am sure that, if the chair of the committee were to bring this
motion to the committee, there would be a majority of the committee
that would support this proposed schedule because the counsel has been
fair, evenhanded, and has done a very professional job and we respect
his work.
Yet for some reason the Republican leadership seems bent on forcing
this process to be concluded by inauguration day. What is proposed is
that this will, this process will begin on the 13th, with hearings in
the House in open session for the American public; how many days that
takes, no one knows. And then there will be a couple of days or a day
or however long to discuss what the sanctions should be. Then a report
must be written, and it must lay on the desk for 3 days before we vote
on the 20th.
That means from the 13th to the 20th, you have 8 days. If you are
going to have hearings and people able to think, you are not going to
have 3 days for it to lay on the desk so that the Members of this House
can read and know what they are voting on.
I suspect there will be an effort to waiver that rule when we come
back here or some way to get around it so that people do not have the
time to actually look at it.
Now, it is in my view very sad, it has been said, that what has been
a very professional job is now being forced into a schedule which is
designed for political damage control. Demanding that that vote occur
on inauguration day, we are going to come in here at 9:00 in the
morning, called to order. This issue will be laid before the House. We
will have an hour's discussion or whatever. We will vote on it and go
around the building and inaugurate the President. That is not an
orderly, thoughtful process. People will arrive here on Monday and with
no reading of this, it will have been 3 days, Saturday, Sunday, Monday;
and they will be expected to vote on it out here in a sensible way.
That is not orderly. It is not a good process.
Now, you can only guess why they wanted that. The House deserves
better than this. After 2 years of an incredibly slow process, the
House can take a few extra days to do the job right. I urge the Members
to support this motion to commit this back and have an orderly process
date set in it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this issue not as a
member of the committee, the ethics committee, not even as a Member who
deigns to presume that he knows what is going on in the ethics
committee with respect to this case, in fact, as a Member who has
purposely kept himself as uninformed as is possible out of respect for
the committee, its jurisdictional rights and its obligations for
confidence, but as a Member that has said on this floor on several
occasions and in public on several occasions, the committee must be
respected for its professionalism, for its ability, and for its
objectivity. We are lost if we cannot find a way to do that with the
committee. We have no place to put our confidence in the search for
justice and fair evaluation.
Indeed, the special counsel is a person whom I have acknowledged must
be a person of ability, competence, and objectivity.
Now, then, when I learned on December 21 that the committee, the
subcommittee, with the advice and the assistance of the special
counsel, had come to a conclusion of the case and was willing to put a
result before the Speaker, I concluded in my mind, they must have
concluded their work. They must have heard all they needed to hear, had
all the witnesses they needed to hear from, considered all the
documents and the reports. Why would I conclude that they would have
done anything less than the full and complete evaluation of the
material needed to have come to a conclusion and put a bill of alleged
violations before the Speaker?
I then later subsequently understood that the Speaker had accepted
the conclusions. There must be technical language. I am sorry I cannot
say what that is. But in any event, that there was some chance that the
full committee might be able to operate and conclude their work even
before this day. And then I was informed, and this is an important
point, that one of the reasons it was impossible for the full committee
to do that was that the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. McDermott], was in Europe on vacation with his family and that he
felt, and justly so, that those plans that he and his family made ought
to be respected in the scheduling of time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just wanted to correct the record on that because the subcommittee
was in constant contact with the ranking member and chairman since
December 21 to deal with the schedule, and at no time was there any
delay caused because of someone being out of town. Mr. Cole, in his
public statement today, has reaffirmed the position that there has been
absolutely no delay in this case and in fact every day our committee
met on conference calls.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, forgive me, I did not mean for the gentleman
to think that I am being accusatory. I am only going by what I read in
the papers. Of course, we all realize that the newspapers are not
always reliable. But I believe I read that the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott] had been reported in the papers as saying, I
do not want to interrupt my vacation.
I do not want to quarrel with the gentleman about that. I just want
to say that, as I had that understanding, perhaps imperfectly so, I
felt, yes, the Member who works and toils long and hard and finally has
an opportunity to fulfill the obligation and the commitment and the
opportunity they had to vacation with their family should have respect
in the process. I will return to that point later.
{time} 1530
Now, again, if the gentleman will let me complete my statement, I do
not wish to quarrel about this. I wish to clarify a few points.
[[Page H20]]
Then I understood that the committee, even long-distance phone calls
and conference calls and so forth, came to some negotiations regarding
a timetable that would require this part of the rules package that is
before us today, the existence of a select committee that reinstates
the life of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as we have
known it, with jurisdiction over this case as its continues into this
Congress. This is what we have done.
I was sitting at home with my wife looking at different colors of
green and finally trying to come to the conclusion of which drapes I
would in fact perhaps get hung when my fax announced a message. The
message I received over my fax as I too struggled to have some time, in
conformity with the announced schedule of the House, to tend to my
life, says the chairwoman and the ranking member of the committee,
along with Special Counsel Cole, announced the following schedule.
They had come to a conclusion. These people that I believed to be
able, competent, professional, objective, fair people, thorough in
their proceedings, who had sat down and talked among themselves in what
I assumed would be in full cognizance of what was required in time and
effort to complete their work, announced a schedule. Came over my fax.
And then as I responded to that schedule and examined what would need
be done now by the body as a whole and all the Members scattered all
over the country dealing with their commitments, I said I must see
about scheduling floor action, completing the work and scheduling floor
action.
I had at least one phone call from a member of the committee in which
it was suggested to me that perhaps we could do this by the 14th of
January. The committee suggestion to me was perhaps by the 14th of
January.
I was the one who had said the 14th of January would be disruptive to
preexisting, already undertaken travel plans of a large number of
Members about which I knew, and would be inconvenient to them. Could
the committee please go with the 21st instead of the 14th? When the
committee said that we could do that, I assumed that a committee of
professional people, with a special counsel capable and able of
understanding what needs be done to complete their work, who was
given--if the gentleman will let me complete my statement, I will
complete. A person under those circumstances would say if these groups
of professional people have said, yes, we agree to accept a week later
than that which we proposed, what reason would I not have to conclude
that they could do so?
Now, just last night, just last night, as we were preparing these
rules, I was asked to consider a different date, after I had done what?
I had announced the schedule to the Members of this Congress,
Republican and Democrat alike, to all the staff of this Congress. And I
had made specific commitments on my own word to two people in
particular, in order to obtain their service on the committee through
the agreed-upon times suggested to me by the committee itself, that
they would not have to do this service beyond the 21st.
I have not set dates arbitrarily. I have no agenda here except an
orderly, respectful addressing of the needs of all the Members of the
House, within the context of what I believe to be the conclusion that
any reasonable person would have made about the competent ability of
professionals thus respected to have suggested properly and with some
degree of full necessity and accuracy what they thought were their time
needs.
So if the time that my colleagues requested and announced in their
announcement is now not acceptable to them, I find a very difficult
problem understanding then why I should then therefore continue to hold
to my clinging belief that they are professional, competent, able
people that can assess what their needs are and make a request of them.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington, [Mr. McDermott] the distinguished ranking member of the
committee.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the majority
leader, sometimes things change. We made that decision on the best
information available to us. None of us, not a single person said they
would not come back if it made sense, but the bipartisan subcommittee
said it could not be done. So that is why we set the timetable we did.
Within the last 3 days, I received, in December, a letter from the
Speaker's attorney saying, ``We want an expedited hearing. We are ready
to go. We want this thing to go just right now.'' And suddenly
yesterday they call us and say they want us to delay this to begin on
the 13th.
Now, what happened between December when they said they were ready to
go and then suddenly they say, yesterday they call Mr. Cole and say,
``We are not ready to go. Do not have any hearings until the 13th. We
need time to prepare.''
Now if the gentleman cannot respond to things changing, it seems to
me he is terribly rigid in setting a date. In this place we find over
and over again, we set a date, it may not work just the way we thought.
I think that when we have the subcommittee come together, with the
special counsel--if it was just Democrats begging for this, that would
be one thing, but we are talking about two Republicans and two
Democrats and the special counsel saying this is a reasonable schedule.
Now, for the gentleman not to respond to that in a positive way seems
to me to suggest he has some other agenda. I do not know what it is,
but, clearly, it is not in preserving the orderly process of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. I would ask the Speaker to let us know how much time is
available to each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior] has 14 minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York Mr.
[Solomon] has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior] is recognized.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I know that the goal that all of us share is
to do justice, and over the last 8 months an extraordinary thing has
happened. A bipartisan subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct has come together and acted in a careful, deliberate
and responsible way to come forward with a finding that produced two
miracles: It was both unanimous and it operated within the
confidentiality that meets the highest standards that this House could
expect.
It took 8 months to do that; 8 months of careful work. Does the full
committee and, if needed, the full House, require 8 months to do that?
I do not believe so. Does it require 8 weeks to do that? I do not think
so. But can that same measure, that same quality of work be done in 8
days, from the 13th to the 21st? I do not think so, and we should not
plan on it.
I have seen the room that is the repository of the work of this
subcommittee. It is filled with shelf after shelf of indexed, loose-
leaf notebooks that represent the work, the documents and the testimony
that they have poured over over those 8 months, and the packing crates,
the dozens and dozens of packing crates, that represent even further
work.
I have read the 22 pages of the statement of alleged violations. I
have read through several hundred pages of draft discussion documents
that represent the work that the committee reported on, and I have
looked through the hundreds of pages of selected primary documents that
serve as the underpinnings of those documents.
I have read not only the selected examples of violations and
sanctions that the Ethics staff has prepared, but I have read the full
CRS analysis of the summaries of violations deep into the last century
and the way this Congress has handled them. Others not on the
subcommittee but on the full committee may have done as much, but I can
suggest to my colleagues that no one has done more, and I am not done.
But I have reached one clear conclusion in this matter, and that is
that to do justice to the work of the subcommittee, we cannot be
rushed. To do justice, even more importantly, to the
[[Page H21]]
respondent in this case, the man we just elected Speaker, we cannot be
rushed. And most importantly of all, to do justice to this House
demands not only a higher standard of ethical behavior but a higher
standard of work in rendering that justice. It cannot be done in 8
days. It may not take 8 months, or it may not take 8 weeks, but it
cannot be done in 8 days.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul, my former classmate from 1978.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern about some of the
rule changes.
Drug Testing
We are now being asked to support rule changes that will require
random drug testing of all members and staff. Drug usage in this
country, both legal and illegal, is a major problem and deserves
serious attention. However, the proposal to test randomly individuals
as a method to cut down on drug usage is ill-advised and should not be
done without serious thought.
The real issue here is not drugs, but rather the issues of privacy,
due process, probable cause, and the fourth amendment. We are dealing
with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the
question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of
the 4th amendment.
A broader, but related question is whether or not it's the
Government's role to mold behavior any more than it's the Government's
role to mold, regulate, tax, impede the voluntarism of economic
contractoral arrangements. No one advocates prior restraint to regulate
journalistic expression even though great harm has come over the
centuries from the promotion of authoritian ideas. Likewise, we do not
advocate the regulation of political expression and religious beliefs
however bizarre and potentially harmful they may seem. And yet we
casually assume that it's the role of government to regulate personal
behavior to make one act more responsibly.
A large number of us do not call for the regulation or banning of
guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue
that it's the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for
diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual
might commit a crime with a gun. Random drug testing is based on the
same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable effort at
identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace
respect to our privacy. Its not worth it.
While some are more interested in regulating economic transactions in
order to make a ``fairer'' society, others are more anxious to regulate
personal behavior to make a ``good'' society. But both cling to the
failed notion that governments, politicians, and bureaucrats know that
is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched,
why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our
telephones not be monitored as well. Vital information regarding drugs
might be obtained in this manner. We who champion the cause of limited
government ought not be promoters of the revolving eye of big brother.
If we embark on this course to check randomly all Congressional
personnel for possible drug usage, it must be noted that the two most
dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and
nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good, is
inconsistent--to say the least.
I have one question. If we have so little respect for our own
privacy, our own liberty, and our own innocence, how can we be expected
to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our
constituents for which we have just sworn an oath to do?
This legislation is well motivated, as is all economic welfare
legislation. The good intentions in solving social problems--when
violence is absent--perversely uses government power, which inevitably
hurts innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the
anticipated destructive behavior of a few.
The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely
voluntary testing programs whereby each individual and member makes the
information available to those who are worried about issues like this.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I ask that the Record reflect my support of the rules and
particularly in its maintaining its prohibition of proxy voting.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise as a member of the special investigative committee of the
Ethics Subcommittee on this unfortunate case that we are looking into,
and I rise in support of the motion to recommit.
There are many areas where I might have some disagreement with the
rules package, but I am very pleased that the Democratic leadership has
given us an opportunity to present the motion to recommit around the
timetable.
With all respect in the world for our colleagues, and that means
every single colleague in this House of Representatives, I believe that
we need to heed the request of the special counsel for an additional
amount of time for a few reasons.
First of all, and I say this without questioning the motivation of
anyone on either side of the aisle about why the rules are in the
package the way they are, the simple fact is that the special counsel,
and by unanimous vote of the subcommittee, two Democrats and two
Republicans, supporting the timetable that the special counsel has put
forth, are making this request. And I believe that the burden is on
those who would deny the special counsel that extended time.
Why do we need more time? Several things have happened that have not
been addressed here yet, or forgive me if I have not heard them. I
would like to associate myself with those remarks.
First of all, one of the members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct has decided to leave the committee, so it required the
appointment of a new committee member who has to become familiarized
with the facts in the case, because this is a facts-driven, facts-based
case.
And without going into any of the material aspects of it or any of
the substance of this case, but only to process and only to time, I
thought I would never see the day when the chair of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct would come to the floor and say that she
would turn down the request of the special counsel to the committee for
a couple more weeks to complete the work of the committee. I say that
very regrettably.
On our subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Porter Goss, and with two Democrats and two Republicans, we have worked
in a very bipartisan fashion all along and continue to in supporting
the request of the special counsel.
I do not and never did think it was appropriate to have a vote on
this important matter on Inauguration Day. Do my colleagues think that
vote is going to take place without any debate? That would not be
right.
So I say to my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and I say
this with the highest regard for the distinguished majority leader, not
impugning any of his motives in this or anyone else on either side of
the aisle, whatever we think about the resolution of the case, I think
we must agree that if the special counsel says he needs a couple more
weeks, we must give him those weeks unless we can prove why that should
not happen. The burden of proof is with those who would vote against
the special counsel.
{time} 1545
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make another point as to why more time is
necessary. Because of a flurry of accusations and representations about
the confidential work of the subcommittee that came out, it required us
to go down another tangent to deal with that, and it necessitated a
statement by the special counsel that the reports that were floating
out there were inaccurate.
So in 1 week the special counsel has had to deem those rumors
inaccurate and come out with his own statement asking for more time, in
which he says each member of the subcommittee has carefully considered
this recommended schedule and agrees it is the best course on which to
proceed.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to commit.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the
Rules Committee.
[[Page H22]]
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to speak today about the Republican rules
package as it pertains to the rules of the House. But unfortunately the
rules package has been changed very dramatically and now addresses the
issue of the ethics investigation of the Speaker.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it helps no one, neither Democrats nor
Republicans, for unresolved investigations to drag on and on. But I
also believe that we do have a responsibility to all the people who
sent us here to make sure that absolutely every Member of Congress, no
matter how powerful, abides by the rules of this House and that the
House rules are applied fairly and consistently to every one of us.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the nonpartisan independent
counsel for the Ethics Committee in which he and the entire
subcommittee ask for more time, ask for more time, to complete their
investigation. But the rules package prevents them from having that
time and in doing so, Mr. Speaker, further compromises the honor of
this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules package and to
support the motion to commit. We must give the ethics members and the
independent counsel enough time to finish the job that they started.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today our Republican colleagues have told
us and told America that Newt Gingrich represents the most ethical
person that they could find to lead this House of Representatives, and
now by this rules resolution they also tell America how little
confidence they have in their judgment.
Once again the Republican leadership, through this rules package, is
trying to pervert the ethics process, to afford special treatment to
Speaker Gingrich that he does not deserve. He once said on the floor of
this House that the Speaker should be held to a higher standard of
ethical conduct. Today we move in the opposite direction with this
rules package, because he is going to be assured a lesser standard of
conduct that would not be available to any ordinary American citizen
anywhere in this country.
What is happening? The investigative subcommittee, Republicans and
Democrats alike, and the special counsel, who was finally appointed
after month upon month of delay, come forward and say, ``We can't do
our job fairly and thoroughly if we are rushed into doing all this
before January 21. Please give us the time to do our job fairly.''
And the Republican leadership, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]
standing right here, says no, we are not going to give you the time to
do your job the way the American people would want that job done and
the way any American prosecutor would want to have the opportunity to
do that job.
I would say this rules package, just like the misconduct of Speaker
Gingrich itself, is a discredit, a dishonor, and a disgrace to this
House and it should be rejected.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to state that my comments are in
connection with section 9 of the resolution dealing with the proposal
that each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its
publications available in an electronic form. I strongly support this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my strong support for section 9 of
the resolution, which adds the following sub-paragraph at the end of
clause 2(e) of rule XI, as follows:
(4) Each Committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible,
make its publications available in electronic form.
I strongly support this addition to the rules, but also want to
clarify how I interpret this.
I am committed to making all House documents available over the
Internet as rapidly as possible. There are still many technical
problems involved, as well as political issues to be dealt with.
However, I believe that this statement is an excellent guiding
principle, and I believe this proposed rule change should be
interpreted as a means of achieving that objective.
In particular, I believe it absolutely essential that every document
available in hard copy also be made available on the Internet at the
same time or earlier than the hard copy is available. The Congress owes
the public at least that much and preferably more.
I furthermore hope that, through the years, all House committees will
develop the standard practice of making many documents available on the
Internet which are currently not available, and that committees will
continue to make progress in that direction.
From my activities in the computerization of the House, and in my
service as a member of the Committee on House Oversight, I will seek to
achieve these objectives, while recognizing the authority and
responsibilities that each committee chairman has in dealing with
business before his or her committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. Once again, I
wish to indicate my strong support for this proposed rule change. I
only wish it went further.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking minority member of the
Resources Committee.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would just encourage my colleagues to vote against the
previous question so that we would have an opportunity in the rules of
this House to have a deadline set on the consideration of campaign
finance reform by the House of Representatives.
Those who are new to the House of Representatives will soon see that
usually the party in power deals with campaign finance reform through
delay and dilatory tactics until we can get it at such a time that we
pass it to the Senate in the last moments of the first session, and
then it falls prey to a filibuster in the Senate, and then at some
point the leader in the Senate will announce that the Senate must get
on with the important business of the Nation, and campaign finance
reform will have to be withdrawn from the calendar. That is why we do
not get campaign finance reform.
Unfortunately, in this session of the Congress, the 100th legislative
day falls sometime late in September. If we deal with campaign finance
reform late in September, there will be no finance reform and the
argument will be made that it certainly cannot take effect in the next
campaign, it will have to be 2 years later. So we are talking about 4
years from now to have campaign finance reform.
It is too important to the people of this country. The system we have
now is a cesspool. It has got to be corrected. It permeates every
decision made in this body, it permeates every decision made in the
executive branch, and it permeates every decision made in the Senate,
and that has got to stop. It dictates what we bring up, what we do not
bring up, amendments that are offered and amendments that are not
offered. That has got to stop, and we have got to return the business
of this country back to the people of this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, we should be concerned here today, as well, with the
first amendment's guarantee of the rights of all Americans to petition
their government. We ought to welcome their participation in our own
committee work.
But what are we doing in these rules? We are creating a new and
absurd barrier to public participation in House hearings by saying that
any nongovernmental witness testifying in committee will have to file,
as a precondition, a full report of all contracts, subcontracts,
grants, subgrants received by that individual, his organization, or
anyone he is representing.
What in the world are we trying to do here? I think erect a barrier a
la the
[[Page H23]]
old Istook amendment to discourage and intimidate citizens from around
the country in coming to talk to us about the public's business.
What will this mean? What unworkable prospect can we look forward to
under this crazy proposal? Well, the head of the Farm Bureau, wanting
to testify about agricultural policy, will have to disclose every
Federal agricultural aid, grant, or contract received by every member
of the Farm Bureau. That is nuts.
The chairman of the board of regents of the University of New York,
if he wishes to testify before a committee of this House, will have to
file as a precondition of that testimony a full report of every
contract, subcontract, grant, and subgrant received by any member of
the faculty at any campus at any institution run by the regents of the
State of New York.
Either this provision will be observed largely in the breach, or only
selectively (preferentially?) applied in which case we should reject
it. Or, it will actually be uniformly enforced to create a mountain of
paper and a real impediment to public participation, in which case we
should reject it even more emphatically.
What are we inflicting on ourselves in this provision of this rules
package? It is yet another reason, along with the many others that have
been suggested, why it should be rejected.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds just to respond.
The gentleman is absolutely wrong. Farmers would not have to report
any of their subsidies.
Let me tell you who is interested in this: the Heritage Foundation,
the National Taxpayers Union, the Wall Street Journal; and, more than
that, the taxpayers of my district want to know who is coming here
testifying for more handouts, and they want to know where that money is
coming from. They want them to be accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Johnson], the distinguished chairwoman of the Ethics Committee.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the members of the Ethics
Committee who served on the subcommittee. I have great respect for the
other members of the Ethics Committee that have worked hard together
over 2 years, and I regret as deeply as you do that we are discussing
this matter on the floor of the House. It is unfortunate that it came
to us 10 minutes before the Republicans were convening a very important
conference that went on very late. By the time I finished discussing
the matter with my leadership, working on compliance, frankly, everyone
was gone.
I have studied carefully your proposal. I talked with Mr. Cole about
it extensively this morning. Your proposal is no different than the old
timetable in terms of the amount of time for public hearing and the
amount of time for committee deliberation. It is distinctly different
in the amount of time for preparation, and I felt that was a very
important point, that the subcommittee has some request for
participating in presentation.
We can give you 4\1/2\ of the 5 days you are requesting for
preparation if we meet this evening instead of tomorrow morning, so
tomorrow morning will be a better work space, either for Mr. Cole, who
needs a day to work by himself, or for everyone. We can accommodate
4\1/2\ of the 5 days.
What we cannot accommodate is the report writing time. He had asked 2
days to complete the report. We can accommodate that. We cannot
accommodate the 4 additional days that he had asked for members to
review. Now, that means we have to work with him and be part of that
review. We know what a lot of the material is about.
As to the concern of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]
about voting on Inauguration Day, this was slipped to the next day.
That was originally the plan, but it has been moved, and members will
stay over.
But we simply, when I look at what we can accommodate, we can truly
accommodate everything important because remember, your proposal only
asked till the 25th, not the 21st, so we only had a 4-day problem. We
can slip 1 day. That brings it down to 3 days and so on and so forth.
This is a manageable problem.
The time for hearings and committee deliberations will be identical.
Even though I am going to oppose your motion to commit, I am absolutely
ready to honor the concerns that lay behind your proposal, and I regret
that we were unable to work it out beforehand.
But my leadership felt, with, I think, some good reason, that they
had made a commitment to the members that they trusted our timetable,
which was also supported by all the members and Mr. Cole, and it is
just unfortunate but not irreconcilable, not irreparable and does not
need to interfere with the quality either of our deliberations or our
work.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Let me just point out one thing. Although we requested about 30 days
ago what the transition rule would look like, we got our first draft of
it yesterday morning. So we just got the transition rule yesterday
morning.
The second point I would point out is that Mr. Cole and the
subcommittee, they are very familiar with the voluminous documents. We
do not have enough time to get a quality report to the House under this
time schedule.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The transition rule could not be worked
out until we were done, and so we are here. I hope we will work well
together to complete the work on this important case.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
(Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in the very brief time I
have, I regret that this package of rule changes has come down to
debate on just one of those changes. Overall it is a pretty good rules
change, but there is one that is grossly inadequate.
As we meet right now on the floor of the House of Representatives,
the Transportation Committee, of which I am a member, is meeting in the
Rayburn Building. I cannot be in two places at once. We should have a
House rule that prohibits the committees meeting while the House is in
session. Instead, you are offering a rules change that would remove the
last prohibition against the committees meeting while the House is in
session. That is a gross mistake. And because we have a mistake, I will
vote against your package.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] would be good enough to allow the Members to vote on some of
these changes individually, because overall it is a good package and I
would like to help pass your package. But I cannot let the terrible
wrong of one change make up for some of the good of the others.
{time} 1600
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the minority
rules package, specifically the rule requiring prompt House action on
campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, we have heard a lot
around here about the 1996 campaign and how it proves once and for all
that our electoral system is out of control. But it is only the
minority package, the Democratic rules package, that requires the House
to deal with campaign finance reform.
Today make no mistake about it. The minority plan being offered by
the Democrats would require this House to act on campaign finance
reform because as we get down the road here there are going to be
efforts to get around this one way or the other like that we had in the
last session.
We have a chance right now to set the record straight and debate
campaign finance reform and require it. However, the majority has
offered a rules package that does not make that requirement.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 15 seconds.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I include for the Record the amendment I would offer if
the previous question is defeated, as follows:
[[Page H24]]
Democratic Reform Package To Be Offered if the Previous Question Is
Defeated
amendment to be offered to h. res. ----
(1) In section 8(a)(2), strike the proposed new
subparagraph (2) [providing that investigative and oversight
reports will be considered as read under certain
circumstances] and redesignate accordingly,
(2) Strike section 10 [placing information burdens on
certain public witnesses],
(3) Strike section 12 [making exceptions to the five-minute
rule in hearings],
(4) Strike section 14 [reducing the time for Members to
file supplemental, minority, or additional views]
(5) Strike section 15 [creating a slush fund for
committees]
(6) Strike section 17 [permitting dynamic estimates in
certain instances]
(7) Strike section 18 [making changes in the appropriations
process]
(8) in the last sentence of section 25, strike ``, or at
the expiration of January 21, 1997, whichever is earlier''.
(9) At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
``SECTION ___. SUBSTANTIVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
(a) The Committee on House Oversight is directed to report
to the House not later than April 7, 1997, a bill to provide
for substantive campaign finance reform.
(b) Not later than ten calendar days after the Committee on
House Oversight has reported a bill pursuant to subparagraph
(a), the Committee on Rules shall report a resolution
providing for the consideration of such bill in the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union under an open
amendment process. If the Committee on House Oversight has
not reported a bill as required by the date specified in
subparagraph (a), the Committee on Rules shall report not
later than ten calendar days after such date a resolution
providing for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of
the first bill introduced in the 105th Congress providing for
substantive campaign finance reform under an open amendment
process.
(c) if the Committee on Rules has not reported a resolution
pursuant to subparagraph (b) by the date specified, it shall
be in order for any Member, as a matter of highest privilege,
on any day thereafter, to move that the House resolve into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the first bill introduced in the
105th Congress providing for substantive campaign finance
reform, the bill shall be subject to two hours of general
debate to be equally divided between the proponents and
opponents of the bill, and shall then be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule.''.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time, 1 minute
and 45 seconds, to the gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], the
vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, and with
that I yield briefly to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Hobson].
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to speak longer, but I do not
have time. But the only thing I would like to point out is I oppose
this because there is not a date certain for ending this committee. We
had an agreement that it would be in writing on the 21st. This merely
just takes out the 21st date and leaves an open end so this committee
can go on forever and ever, and therefore I oppose this motion.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his contribution and,
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rules package and strong
support in passage of the previous question.
This is a very thoughtful package that builds on what we did in the
beginning of the 104th Congress. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Gekas, stood up and praised the fact that we did away with proxy
voting. He appreciated the fact that we reaffirmed our commitment, the
elimination of proxy voting, so Members would show up for work. We also
have had Congress comply with laws imposed on every other American.
These are the kinds of commonsense reforms that the American people
want us to have.
Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying with what
they would offer if they were to defeat the previous question, they
want to eliminate disclosure. They do not want witnesses to provide
information to committees when they come forward to testify. If we
defeat the previous question, they would be able to make that in order
and it would be wrong if they were to proceed with that.
With that I would say also that I am very pleased with another item
in this package, Mr. Speaker, and that is the provision which calls for
dynamic scoring. Today I introduced H.R. 14 with my colleagues the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. English], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], a bipartisan
package to take the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent down to
14 percent to encourage economic growth. This is a very important
package which will allow us to move ahead with that, and with that I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, tucked away in the package of rules changes
being proposed by the Republican majority is a reduction in the time
permitted for the minority to file its views on legislation reported by
a committee. The change would reduce the number of days for filing
these views from 3 days to 2 days.
I find it ironic indeed that during the 40 years of control by the
Democratic Party, we never considered limiting this fundamental right
of the minority to file views on legislation. Yet after just 2 years in
control of the House, the Republicans now have found the granting of 3
whole days to the minority to file its views as somehow being too
onerous.
What is the motivation of this change? Was there some important
business we failed to complete in the 104th Congress because of the 3
day filing period? Of course not. Certainly there appears to be no rush
to pass legislation in this Congress. If that were the case we would be
in session for more than the proposed 10 days over the next 2 months.
The reason seems pretty obvious. The majority wants to make it harder
for Members to hear the arguments being made by the minority. They know
that the logistics of drafting dissenting views and circulating them
for signatures takes time, and if they can limit the time, they hope
they can limit the debate.
It is truly shameful that a party which served in the minority for 40
years would be so quick to trample on one of the most important
minority rights--namely, the right to express your views.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished
chairman of our Rules Committee Mr. Solomon, for all his diligent work
on behalf of the rules of this House. I wish all of my colleagues a
happy new year and look forward to working with all of you for a
productive session.
As Members know, this time 2 years ago the new Republican majority
brought forward a bold and comprehensive package of rules changes
geared toward creating a more open, more responsive and more effective
House. With those landmark changes we began a new era of management of
this institution--one that fostered greater deliberation and public
accountability. Today we bring forth a second installment, by design
more moderate in scope and targeted toward refining the major
improvements we made in 1995.
I was proud to have assisted in crafting this package, working with
our chairman and my colleague David Dreier in holding unprecedented
public hearings to solicit suggestions from our colleagues and outside
witnesses. Those four hearings--held in the late summer and early
fall--greatly assisted our efforts to design this targeted package of
rules changes. It is my hope that this exercise becomes standard
procedure. Mr. Solomon has already described the details of this
package, which all Members by now have had the opportunity to
scrutinize and review. I would just like to point out three specific
changes that I think are particularly important. The first is the
incorporation of dynamic scoring--in effect providing official
recognition of what many of us have known for some time: that
legislation does affect the way people act. It's about time we became
more accurate and sophisticated in our budget scoring efforts and began
attempting to remove some of the institutional bias towards profligate
spending.
Second, I am pleased that we were able to provide for the
establishment of a suitable drug testing policy for this House. This is
a matter on which the private sector and even the executive branch have
moved while this House has lagged behind. It's time we brought
ourselves into line with the times and this rules package paves the way
for that to happen. Finally, we are continuing our important efforts to
modernize Congress and open the legislative process to the sunshine of
public scrutiny by asking our committees, to the maximum extent
feasible, to put their publications on the Internet. We are all
committed to expanding public access to and understanding of the
workings of this Congress--and clearly opening up the committee process
is integral to that effort. One last note on a topic that has received
considerable attention recently--this rules package does temporarily
reconstitute the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from the
previous Congress, to allow it to complete its pending business.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a practical and workable
package of rules changes, one that builds on the enormous success of
the rules rewrite we conducted in 1995--making technical adjustments
where the past 2 years' experiences have suggested modifications are
needed, and taking additional steps
[[Page H25]]
to enhance the openness, deliberation, and accountability of this body.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman
Solomon for allowing me the time to express my support for the
provision in the 105th Congress House Rules Package which requires that
the Speaker of the House, in consultation with the minority leader,
develop a system for drug testing the Members, staff and officers of
the House of Representatives. I appreciate Chairman Solomon's
commitment to ensuring that this provision is a part of the package.
In the past several Congresses, I have introduced a bill that would
require Members of Congress to be mandatorily drug tested. Since 1989,
I have followed this practice myself, by paying out of my own pocket to
have both my staff and myself randomly drug tested. However, I have
continued to work hard to see that mandatory drug testing be
implemented in the entire House of Representatives.
I believe that Members of Congress should be mandatorily drug tested,
just as our constituents working in federal agencies and private
industry are tested. We should not hold ourselves to a different
standard than those we represent. As Members of Congress, we have an
obligation to not only set policy, but to set an example for those we
represent, and show them that we are held accountable for our actions,
just as they are asked to be accountable in their jobs.
Furthermore, considering the recent rise of drug use among teens in
this country, we must send a message to young people that drug abuse is
dangerous and wrong, by taking action to institute mandatory drug
testing for Members of Congress.
I am greatly encouraged by this language in the House Rules Package
for the 105th Congress. With this provision, we have the opportunity to
institute a tough policy on drug testing for Members and staff in the
House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this House
Rules Package, which I know the chairman himself and the staff of the
House Rules Committee has put a lot of work into.
I appreciate Chairman Solomon's willingness to work with me
personally on an issue I feel strongly about, especially for the
language specifying that the system of drug testing may provide for
testing of any Member, officer, or employee of the House.
I would especially like to recommend that the drug testing system
developed for the House contain a provision that Members of the House
of Representatives, in particular, be required to submit to mandatory,
random drug tests. Although the traditional method of drug testing is
urinalysis, I would like to see the final regulations leave the options
open so that Members may have the choice of other methods of testing in
addition to urinalysis.
Again, I thank the chairman for the time and commend him for his
long-standing championship of drug testing so that we may fight the war
against drugs and make the Congress more accountable to those we
represent.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 202, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 4]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Barrett (NE)
Blagojevich
Brady
Brown (FL)
Condit
Cooksey
Peterson (PA)
Sanford
Torres
Weller
{time} 1615
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION TO COMMIT OFFERED BY MR. McDERMOTT
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McDermott moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5),
to a select committee comprised of the Majority Leader and
the Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same
to the House forthwith with only the following amendment:
In the last sentence of section 25, strike ``, or at the
expiration of January 21, 1997, whichever is earlier''.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, due to the noise, I did not hear the Clerk
read
[[Page H26]]
and I have three different motions to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will re-report the motion.
The Clerk re-reported the motion.
{time} 1630
Mr. SOLOMON. So there is no date at all in what the gentleman just
read.
Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is this the vote to accept the independent
counsel's recommendations for the orderly----
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DOGGETT. Consideration of the Gingrich ethics complaint
requested----
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order.
Mr. DOGGETT. By both the Republicans and Democrat members of the ----
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
The motion to commit is not debatable under general parliamentary
procedure applicable to the House.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit
offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 223, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Green
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--223
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Condit
Gutierrez
Sanford
Torres
{time} 1645
Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. ROBERT SCHAFFER of Colorado changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 202, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
[[Page H27]]
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--4
McInnis
Richardson
Stabenow
Torres
{time} 1705
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.
____________________