[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E100-E103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 5, ADOPTING 
                              HOUSE RULES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 21, 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, since the House adopted House Resolution 5 
on January 7, 1997, establishing the standing rules of the House for 
the 105th Congress, several questions and comments have been raised as 
to the application or interpretation of the new rules.
  Let me first direct my colleagues to the debate on House Resolution 5 
in the Congressional Record of January 7, 1997, during which additional 
materials were inserted in the Record for the benefit and guidance of 
Members and committees. The text of the resolution itself begins at 
page H8 of the Record. My introductory remarks explaining the rules 
package begins at page H10. Immediately after my remarks are a 
``Highlights and Section-by-Section Summary'' (pp. H11-12), followed by 
a more detailed ``Section-by-Section Analysis'' (pp. H12-15), and a 
letter from Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer further 
explaining the more specific definition of income tax rate increases 
contained in House Resolution 5 with respect to the three-fifths-vote 
rule and the prohibition on retroactive income tax rate increases (p. 
H15). I have also included in the Record a press release and table on 
comparative legislative data for the 103d and 104th Congresses (pp. 
H15-16); and a brief history of how the process for adopting House 
rules at the beginning of a Congress has evolved over the last century 
(pp. H16-17).
  Mr. Speaker, since the adoption of the rules on January 7, I have: 
First, responded to two letters from colleagues regarding the ``truth-
in-testimony rule;'' second, responded to a letter from the minority 
leader forwarded to my Rules Committee office by the Speaker; and 
third, written to the Parliamentarian to further clarify the intent and 
application of the rules that allows for exceptions to the 5-minute 
limit in questioning hearing witnesses, copies of which have been sent 
to all committee chairmen and ranking minority members. In addition, I 
have inserted remarks elsewhere in this Record in response to Mr. 
Dingell's inserted statement on the new rule on time allowed for filing 
views on committee reports.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record, I include my exchange of 
correspondence with Representatives Frost and Skaggs on the ``truth-in-
testimony rule''; the minority leader's letter to the Speaker on 
several provisions in the rules package and my response; and my

[[Page E101]]

letter to the Parliamentarian on the rule allowing for extended 
questioning of witnesses.
  The materials follow:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 24, 1996.
     Hon. Gerald B. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my opposition to 
     the so-called ``Truth in Testimony'' amendment to the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives. It is my understanding that 
     while this amendment was not included in the package of 
     amendments to the Rules of the House for the 105th Congress 
     approved by the Republican Conference in November, it is 
     currently under consideration for inclusion in that package. 
     While I have not yet been provided with language of this or 
     any other proposed amendment, I must register my strong 
     opposition to including such a potentially far reaching 
     amendment in the Rules of the House without providing those 
     affected the opportunity to comment.
       Having served as Chairman of the Democratic Caucus 
     Committee on Organization, Study and Review for 10 years, I 
     am fully aware that rules changes for a Congress are matters 
     that are vetted through the party process. But it was my 
     experience that serious and substantive changes to the 
     operations of the House of Representatives were given ample 
     opportunity to be discussed and analyzed within the 
     Democratic Caucus. Had an amendment of this magnitude been 
     proposed during my tenure as Chairman of that Committee, I 
     can assure you that I would have referred it to the Committee 
     on Rules for consideration in the regular committee process. 
     I urge you to do that in this instance.
       I cannot argue that substance of this proposal since I have 
     not yet seen any language. But I do want to make a procedural 
     case against including this amendment in the Republican rules 
     package on January 7. This is a substantive matter and one 
     that deserves full analysis and examination. I urge you, as 
     Chairman of the Committee on Rules, to oppose including the 
     amendment in the Republican rules package.
       I appreciate your attention to this matter, and with every 
     best wish for a happy New Year, I remain
           Sincerely,
     Martin Frost.
                                                                    ____

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 1997.
     Hon. Martin Frost,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Martin: Thank you for your letter of December 24 
     expressing your opposition to the new ``Truth-in-Testimony'' 
     rule, and for raising the issue for discussion at our 
     Committee's organizational meeting yesterday.
       You are correct that the proposed rule change was not 
     included in the package presented to our Conference on 
     November 22nd. It was initially felt that the Leadership 
     would simply urge committees to adopt it as a committee rule, 
     since nothing in House Rules would preclude that. However, 
     during the discussion of the draft rules package at the 
     November Conference, several Members spoke-out in strong 
     support for including a uniform disclosure requirement in 
     House Rules. The Leadership subsequently agreed with that 
     recommendation and the provision was included in the package 
     that was finally adopted by the Conference on the morning of 
     January 7th.
       Your point about the need to refer for Rules Committee 
     consideration rules changes ``of this magnitude,'' and how 
     Democrats did this, is both curious and well taken. I do not 
     recall the proposal for delegate voting in the Committee of 
     the Whole ever being referred to the Rule Committee and yet 
     it was included in your last Democratic House Rules package 
     at the beginning of the 103rd Congress. On the other hand, 
     the Doolittle ``Truth-in-Testimony'' rule was referred to the 
     Rules Committee and was presented to us by Rep. Doolittle on 
     July 17, 1996--the first in a series of four hearings we 
     conducted entitled, ``Building on Change: Preparing for the 
     105th Congress.'' (See pages 29-33 of printed hearings) So, 
     contrary to your assertion that there has been no opportunity 
     for comment, there has been plenty of opportunity dating back 
     to the July 17th hearing. I'm only sorry you were not able to 
     attend that hearing and therefore missed the testimony and 
     the opportunity to question Rep. Doolittle on his proposal
       As a result of some subsequent concerns expressed about the 
     penalty in the Doolittle resolution of expunging a non-
     complying witness' testimony from the hearing record, we 
     dropped that provision before it was presented to the 
     Conference and the House.
       I appreciate your calling my attention to the David Skaggs 
     letter (which was delivered to us in the middle of our 
     organizational meeting yesterday) calling for a Rules 
     Committee hearing to discuss the effect and purpose of the 
     ``truth-in-testimony'' rule.
       The simple purpose of the rule is public disclosure of 
     public funds received by an individual or organization so 
     that Members and the public alike will have a better 
     perspective on a witnesses' interests as they relate to the 
     subject matter of a hearing. The simple effect of the rule 
     will be better-informed committee members as they prepare for 
     and participate in their committees' hearings. Too often, 
     such information is requested at a hearing, and witnesses do 
     not have it readily available. Consequently, it is only 
     supplied at a later date for the hearing record when it is 
     too late to ask relevant questions bearing on that 
     information.
       Madison, in Federalist 58 referred to the House's ``power 
     over the purse,'' as ``the most complete and effectual weapon 
     with which any constitution can arm the immediate 
     representatives.'' Certainly, in this regard, it is a 
     legitimate function, indeed an obligation, of our committees 
     to have a better understanding of how public funds are being 
     expended--by whom and for what purposes--especially as we 
     continue to downsize the government and move towards a 
     balanced budget. Our hearing and oversight process is one of 
     the best methods we have for obtaining such information so 
     that our committees, and ultimately the Congress, can 
     effectively deliberate and make the best possible and most 
     informed and prudent decisions.
       What would be the effect of non- or partial-compliance? As 
     we explained in our section-by-section analysis of the rules 
     package that was inserted after my floor statement on H. Res. 
     5 yesterday (Congressional Record, Jan. 7, 1997, pp. 11-17), 
     non-compliance would neither prevent a witness from 
     testifying, nor result in the testimony being stricken from 
     the hearing record. However, I think it could result in an 
     objection to a unanimous consent request that the written 
     statement be included in the hearing record, leaving only the 
     oral summary of testimony actually presented as part of the 
     official hearing record.
       You can be assured that, just as we did during the 104th 
     Congress with respect to the rules adopted on opening day of 
     that Congress, the Rules Committee will be conducting ongoing 
     oversight of the operation of this and other new rules as we 
     prepare for the 106th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald B. Solomon,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                      House of Representatives

                                                  January 8, 1997.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request that the 
     Committee on Rules hold a hearing to take testimony and 
     discuss the effect and purpose of section 10 of the H. Res. 
     5, adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 
     One Hundred Fifth Congress.
       As you know, section 10, the so-called ``Truth in 
     Testimony'' provision, requires any person appearing in a 
     nongovernmental capacity as a witness before committees of 
     the House to include as part of her written statement a list 
     of the amount and source of all federal grants, subgrants, 
     contracts, or subcontracts received during the previous three 
     fiscal years by the witness or entities she represents.
       As I stated yesterday on the Floor of the House, I have 
     strong concerns about the effect and purpose of section 10 
     and regret that it was adopted without the full and 
     thoughtful consideration made possible by committee hearings.
       I believe this provision will only create another barrier 
     to citizens exercising their right to petition the 
     government, in this case the House of Representatives. In 
     many cases, this provision will also force organizations to 
     divert resources from productive work to the paperwork and 
     administrative activities made necessary by the provision's 
     requirements.
       Again I urge the Committee on Rules to schedule a hearing 
     to consider the effects of section 10 of H. Res. 5.
           Sincerely yours,
     David E. Skaggs.
                                                                    ____

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 1997.
     Hon. David E. Skaggs,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear David: Thank you for your letter of January 8 urging 
     that the Rules Committee hold a hearing to discuss the effect 
     and purpose of the new ``truth-in-testimony'' rule.
       The fact is that we did hold a hearing on July 17, 1996, at 
     which the proposal was presented by its sponsor, Rep. 
     Doolittle, and discussed. The testimony was offered as part 
     of our series of four hearings (at which you testified) 
     entitled, ``Building on Change: Preparing for the 105th 
     Congress,'' from which many of the rules changes adopted by 
     the House were initially proposed.
       The simple purpose of the rule is public disclosure of 
     public funds received by an individual or organization so 
     that Members and the public alike will have a better 
     perspective on a witnesses' interests as they relate to the 
     subject matter of a hearing. The simple effect of the rule 
     will be better-informed committee members as they prepare for 
     and participate in their committees' hearings. Too often, 
     such information is requested at a hearing, and witnesses do 
     not have it readily available. Consequently, it is only 
     supplied at a later date for the hearing record when it is 
     too late to ask relevant questions bearing on that 
     information.
       Madison, in Federalist 58 referred to the House's ``power 
     over the purse,'' as ``the most complete and effectual weapon 
     with which any constitution can arm the immediate 
     representatives.'' Certainly, in this regard, it is a 
     legitimate function, indeed an

[[Page E102]]

     obligation, of our committees to have a better understanding 
     of how public funds are being expended--by whom and for what 
     purposes--especially as we continue to downsize the 
     government and move towards a balanced budget. Our hearing 
     and oversight process is one of the best methods we have for 
     obtaining such information so that our committees, and 
     ultimately the Congress, can effectively deliberate and make 
     the best possible and most informed and prudent decisions.
       What would be the effect on non- or partial-compliance? As 
     we explained in our section-by-section analysis of the rules 
     package that was inserted after my floor statement on H. Res. 
     5 yesterday (Congressional Record, Jan. 7, 1997, pp. 11-17), 
     non-compliance would neither prevent a witness from 
     testifying, nor result in the testimony being stricken from 
     the hearing record. However, I think it could result in an 
     objection to a unanimous consent request that the written 
     statement be included in the hearing record, leaving only the 
     oral summary of testimony actually presented as part of the 
     official hearing record.
       I do not think the requirement will, as you assert, ``force 
     organizations to divert resources from productive work to the 
     paperwork and administrative activities made necessary by the 
     provision's requirements.'' Any business or organization that 
     does not have ready access to basic information on the source 
     and amounts of its Federal grants and contracts over the last 
     three years is probably guilty of questionable or sloppy 
     bookkeeping practices, which in turn raises the question of 
     whether they should be entrusted with expending taxpayer 
     funds in the first place.
       You can be assured that, just as we did during the 104th 
     Congress with respect to the rules adopted on opening day of 
     that Congress, the Rules Committee will be conducting ongoing 
     oversight of the operation of this and other new rules as we 
     prepare for the 106th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald B. Solomon,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 1997.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Since floor procedures yesterday limited 
     our ability to have a full debate on all of the Republican 
     Conference's recommended rules changes in H.Res. 5, I am 
     writing to notify you of additional objections to certain 
     provisions that our Leadership and minority members have put 
     forth. Please note recommendations on the following seven 
     points:
       In section 8(a)(2), strike the proposed new subparagraph 
     (2), providing that investigative and oversight reports will 
     be ``considered as read'' in committee under certain 
     circumstances, and redesignate accordingly;
       Strike section 10, placing information burdens on non-
     governmental public witnesses by requiring them to disclose 
     federal grants and contracts they have received;
       Strike section 12, creating exceptions to the five-minute 
     rule in hearings;
       Strike section 14, reducing the time allotted for Members 
     to file supplemental, minority, or additional views;
       Strike section 15, creating a slush fund for committees;
       Strike section 17, permitting ``dynamic scoring'' estimates 
     to be included in reports on major tax bills;
       In the last sentence of section 25, strike ``, or at the 
     expiration of January 21, 1997, whichever is earlier''.
       I would hope that you might consider revisiting these 
     matters in light of minority objections. I am certain that 
     such efforts would enhance the spirit of bipartisanship and 
     comity in the 105th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard A. Gephardt.
                                  ____
                                  
                                              The Speaker's Rooms,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 1997.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: This to acknowledge your letter regarding 
     the rules changes contained in H. Res. 5. I have asked Rep. 
     Gerald Solomon, chairman of the Committee on Rules, to review 
     your comments to see if some accommodations can be made.
       Regardless of the outcome of Chairman Solomon's review and 
     his recommendations, I sincerely hope that you and other 
     members of the Democrat leadership will do your utmost to see 
     that the rules of the House are followed and that decorum is 
     maintained.
       Rest assured that the Republican leadership is committed to 
     protecting the decorum of the House and the dignity of its 
     proceedings.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Newt Gingrich,
                                                          Speaker.
                                  ____
                                  
                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 1997.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Dick: This is to acknowledge the Speaker's transmittal 
     to me of your letter expressing concerns about several of the 
     House Rules changes adopted on the opening day of the 105th 
     Congress.
       You have asked the Speaker that we might revisit these in 
     light of minority objections, and in the spirit of 
     bipartisanship and comity in the 105th Congress.
       As I have already indicated in letter to both Martin Frost 
     and David Skaggs with respect to the ``truth-in-testimony 
     rule'' (one of those on your list), it is my full intention 
     that our Committee will carefully monitor the operation of 
     all the new rules adopted in H. Res. 5 as part of our ongoing 
     oversight responsibilities over House rules and procedures.
       As you will recall, during the course of the last Congress 
     the Rules Committee reported modified versions of suggestions 
     that were in your minority opening day rules amendments 
     relating to the gift rule and book advances and royalties. 
     Moreover, towards the end of the second session we held four 
     hearings on ``Building on Change: Preparing for the 105th 
     Congress,'' at which we heard from Members of both parties 
     who had suggestions for further rules changes. Many of those 
     proposals were incorporated in this year's opening day 
     package.
       In summary, I fully intend to proceed on a bipartisan basis 
     as we monitor the effectiveness of the rules changes and 
     consider possible adjustments, additions or deletions. I 
     welcome your continuing advice and suggestions as we proceed 
     with this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gerald B.H. Solomon,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 1997.
     Mr. Charels W. Johnson III,
     Parliamentarian of the House, Office of the Parliamentarian, 
         The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Charley: It is my understanding that some questions 
     have been raised regarding the application of section 12 
     (``Exceptions to the Five-Minute Rule in Hearings'') of 
     H.Res. 5, adopting House Rules for the 105th Congress. The 
     purpose of this letter is to clarify the intent of that rule.
       Section 12 amends clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule XI which 
     previously provided that: ``Each committee shall apply the 
     five-minute rule in the interrogation of witnesses in any 
     hearing until such time as each member of the committee who 
     so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness.''
       The amendment adopted to that rule by section 12 of H. Res. 
     5 provides that, ``Each committee may adopt a rule or motion 
     permitting an equal number of its majority and minority party 
     members each to question witnesses for a specified period not 
     longer than 30 minutes,'' and that, ``A Committee may adopt 
     may adopt a rule or motion permitting committee staff for its 
     majority and minority party members to question a witness for 
     equal specified period of time.''
       In the section-by-section analysis of the rules changes 
     that I inserted following my introductory remarks on H.Res. 5 
     (Congressional Record, January 7, 1997, pp. H12-15) it is 
     noted that, ``That rule or motion could permit designated 
     majority or minority party member or staff to question 
     witnesses for a period longer than their usual 5-minute 
     entitlement (p. H14, emphasis added).'' The underscored words 
     were intended to clarify that the exception to the five-
     minute rule for extended questioning applies to only those 
     members designated. It in no way is meant to supplant the 
     right of other committee members to question witnesses for 
     five-minutes, though the extended questioning period could 
     occur before other members are recognized.
       It is not the intent of the rule to permit a motion that 
     provides for further extended questioning of the same witness 
     after 60-minutes of extended questioning has already been 
     allowed. The 60-minutes should be the maximum limit on 
     extended questioning of the same witness, whether by 
     designated majority and minority party members or staff, in 
     order to protect the rights of other members of a committee 
     to exercise their rights to question a witness under the 
     five-minute rule.
       The analysis goes on to indicate that: ``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.'' 
     However, it is not the intent of this rule that either a 
     committee rule or motion allowing for such extended 
     questioning should be used solely for the purpose of 
     permitting such extended questioning only of witnesses of the 
     chairman's or committee majority's choosing. Just as the rule 
     imposes an equal time requirement for the parties' in the 
     extended period for questioning witnesses, it is expected 
     that the committee chair and/or committee majority would 
     treat the minority fairly in allowing for extended 
     questioning of a witness or witnesses of their choosing, and 
     therefore that such arrangements could be worked out between 
     the chair and ranking minority member in advance of a 
     hearing.
       For example, if the majority wishes to apply the extended 
     questioning rule to witnesses A and B, the minority should be 
     allowed to apply the extended questioning to witnesses C and 
     D, i.e., an equal number of witnesses of their choosing. That 
     is not to say that the minority should have a veto over 
     extended questioning of witnesses A and B of the majority's 
     choosing simply because the minority may not want to use 
     their half of the time.
       In summary, the rule was designed to provide fairness to 
     both parties, both in terms

[[Page E103]]

     of the time allowed for the extended questioning of 
     witnesses, and in the determination of which witnesses may be 
     subjected to such extended questioning.
       I hope this will help to further clarify the rule's intent 
     for any questions directed to your office, and for the 
     purposes of any committee rules or motions developed to 
     implement this rule.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman.

                          ____________________