[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.

                          ____________________