[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E99-E100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E99]]
         ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE FOR THE 105TH CONGRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 21, 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on House Resolution 5, 
adopting House Rules for the 105th Congress, my good friend from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] inserted a statement in the Record complaining 
about the provision in the rules packages that reduces from 3 days to 2 
days after a measure or matter is approved by a committee, the time for 
filing additional, supplemental or minority views. To quote from his 
statement:

       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 have found the granting of 3 whole days to 
     the minority to file its views as somehow being too onerous.

  Mr. Speaker, I am responding to that inserted speech by inserting my 
own rebuttal under the general leave granted to Members to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 5.
  I only regret that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] was 
apparently not on the floor to hear my opening statement on the rules 
package in which I explained that the proposal for 2 rather than 3 days 
to file views was originally made by Rules Committee Chairman Joe 
Moakley before the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress 
in the 103d Congress. Moreover, when the joint committee did not 
include that proposal in its recommended bill (H.R. 3801, 
Representative Hamilton, Feb. 4, 1994), the chairman inserted it in his 
chairman's mark or substitute for the joint committee's bill.
  We did not object to the proposal when Mr. Moakley testified in 
support of it before the joint committee on May 20, 1993. Nor did we 
object to it when he included it in his chairman's mark of August 1, 
1994. Nor did we present an amendment to the Rules Committee to delete 
it during the committee markup of H.R. 3801 on August 4, 1994--even 
though we did file with the committee a rather lengthy package of other 
amendments we intended to offer.
  Although the markup was suspended on August 4 by Chairman Moakley 
over the prospect of a repeal of proxy voting, after only one majority 
amendment had been disposed of, it should be made quite clear that the 
suspension of the markup was not caused by any Rules Committee 
Republican opposition raised or noticed on the 2-day rule for filing 
views.
  Indeed, if that had been even a minor factor in the chairman's 
reasons for suspending markup, I doubt very much that he would have 
included the very same 2-day rule in his subsequent chairman's mark of 
September 19, 1994.
  As I indicated to the House in my opening remarks on this rule 
package for the 105th Congress, we were offering the Moakley 2-day rule 
for filing views in the spirit of bipartisanship, giving him full 
recognition for being the author of the proposal, and full support for 
the Moakley rule. So the gentleman from Michigan is just factually, 
dead wrong in asserting that such a rule was never proposed by the 
Democrats in all of its 40 years of control of the House. In fact it 
was, and came very close to being adopted just prior to the 1994 
elections when we gained control of the House.
  As Mr. Moakley made clear in his testimony before the joint committee 
in 1993, it was his hope that by shortening the period for filing 
views, it would be less necessary in the future for the Rules Committee 
to waive the 3-day requirement for reports to be available to Members 
before they can be considered by the House. We share that same hope.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I insert at this point in the Record the 
testimony of Mr. Moakley before that joint committee in 1993, as well 
as the relevant text of his rule from his August 1 and September 19, 
1994, chairman's marks for H.R. 3801, which also included the automatic 
filing authority for committees on the second day.
  The materials follow:

Statement of the Honorable John Joseph Moakley, Chairman, Committee on 
Rules, U.S. House of Representatives Before the Joint Committee on the 
                 Organization of Congress, May 20, 1993

       Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Joint Committee for 
     the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about 
     committee and floor procedures in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives. As Chairman of the House Rules Committee, I 
     realize I am an obvious spokesperson for the procedures by 
     which bills are considered in the House. I do not come before 
     you today to blindly defend our current practices. Rather, I 
     view this as a valuable and essential opportunity to take an 
     objective, critical look at our rules and procedures and to 
     comment on what areas might possibly be improved.
       Before getting to specifics, I would like to briefly 
     express my gratitude to the Joint Committee for the work it 
     has done to date. I commend the Committee for both its 
     diligence and the seriousness with which it has undertaken 
     its work. Yours is not an easy task, I know. Change is always 
     difficult, particularly when it is uncertain whether the 
     proposed changes will actually improve the status quo. I can 
     appreciate the enormity of your assignment and hope that my 
     comments today assist you with your comprehensive evaluation 
     of the Institution.
       Reflecting upon the atmosphere in Congress of late, I must 
     confess that I am almost relieved that we have reached this 
     juncture--it is time for us to confront our problems, either 
     real or perceived, and resolve them one way or another. In my 
     twenty-one years in Congress, I have never experienced 
     partisan tensions as aggravated and sustained as they have 
     been over the past couple of years. While a certain amount of 
     sparring between the parties is unavoidable, healthy even, I 
     believe we have far surpassed the level of disagreement that 
     characterizes a healthy democracy.
       I am most concerned with the element of distrust that seems 
     to pervade our daily interactions. We cannot do our jobs well 
     when we distrust those with whom we work. We were sent here 
     to make sound, well-reasoned policy decisions on behalf of 
     our constituents, our country and the world. I am deeply 
     concerned that the public good is being compromised in the 
     conflicts of our rival parties.
       It is out of these concerns that I admit certain changes 
     are needed. On the procedural front, I think I can recommend 
     several improvements which will not only enhance the quality 
     of deliberation in the House of Representatives, but will 
     also lessen some of the partisan jealousies which arguably 
     consume too much of our time and energy. As I have not yet 
     talked with the Speaker about these ideas, I in no way wish 
     to imply that my remarks today reflect the sentiments of the 
     Leadership.
       First, I would like to note the Democratic Leadership's 
     recent efforts to allow for more open, inclusive debate. By 
     inclusive I mean providing for greater participation by both 
     the majority and the minority. The views of the minority are 
     a vital component of the legislative process, and within 
     reason, should be accommodated. I say within reason because 
     underlying the legislative procedures of the House is the 
     general principle that a determined majority of members 
     should be able to work its will on the floor without undue 
     delay by the minority. While House rules and procedures 
     generally recognize the importance of permitting any 
     minority, partisan or bi-partisan, to present its views and 
     prepare alternatives, the rules do not enable that minority 
     to filibuster or use other devices to prevent the majority 
     from accomplishing its objectives in a timely manner.
       I think everyone would agree that it is the prerogative of 
     the majority party leadership to both set the legislative 
     agenda and to provide for the orderly consideration of 
     legislation in the House. And while the role of the Rules 
     Committee is to try to facilitate the Leadership's 
     legislative agenda, its power is not without limitation. The 
     Rules Committee can only recommend special rules to the 
     House--it cannot impose its recommendations on the 
     membership. It is for the House to decide, by majority vote, 
     whether it is prepared to accept the ground rules, including 
     any restrictions on amendments that the Committee proposes.
       The Rules Committee structures its rules based not only on 
     the views of its members, but also on its perception of what 
     a majority--218 members--of the House is prepared to support. 
     Ultimately, the House agenda is subject to control by a 
     voting majority. This majority is not static, nor is it 
     strictly partisan. Rather it is continually shifting and must 
     be constructed and reconstructed from one issue to the next.
       Unfortunately, bare statistics do not always reflect the 
     considerations behind the types of rules reported by my 
     Committee. The first ten rules reported by the Rules 
     Committee in the 103rd Congress were indeed by definition 
     ``restrictive'', that is, providing certain limitations on 
     the number or types of amendments that could be offered. But 
     while my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that 
     there amendments were arbitrarily rejected by the Rules 
     Committee, this simply isn't true.
       Before condemning the Democratic Leadership as callous or 
     insensitive to the ideas

[[Page E100]]

     of the minority, one must examine the nature of the bills and 
     the types of amendments offered. Interestingly, of the ten 
     examples cited by the Republican Leadership Task Force on 
     Deliberative Democracy as egregious examples of the Rules 
     Committee unreasonably denying amendments for floor 
     consideration, the first five amendments were not even 
     germane to the measures being considered. It is common 
     knowledge that House rules and precedents require all 
     amendments to be germane to the text they would amend. 
     Therefore, I see nothing unreasonable about the Rules 
     Committee's decision not to make these amendments in 
     order. Moreover, another two amendments cited by the Task 
     Force would have been subject to other points of order. In 
     sum, seven of the ten amendments cited by the Task Force 
     would not even have been made in order under an open rule.
       As for the restrictive rules that the Rules Committee has 
     reported to date, let me say this: the baseball season is 
     only one month old--just because the Tigers are now in the 
     lead doesn't mean they're going to win the pennant. In other 
     words, be patient. There is no rigid program governing the 
     types of rules to be reported by the Rules Committee. Rather, 
     each rule will be determined on a case by case basis.
       As you know, the Rules Committee recently reported open 
     rules on three bills--nobody should be surprised when such 
     contentious issues such as reconciliation and campaign 
     finance are considered under structured rules--but as the 
     House moves further into its legislative season I anticipate 
     more open rules being reported by my committee.
       Another change I would recommend relates to the motion to 
     recommit. The change would arguably strengthen the minority's 
     ability to act as a constructive partner in the development 
     of legislation. I endorse a modification of the plan proposed 
     by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein in one of their earlier reports 
     to the Joint Committee.
       I propose amending House Rule XVI, clause 4, so as to 
     guarantee the minority a motion to recommit with instructions 
     whenever a special order reported by the Rules Committee 
     precludes the minority from offering amendments in the 
     Committee of the Whole. This right would be subject to a 
     couple of conditions. First, the motion would be guaranteed 
     only if offered at the specific direction of the Minority 
     Leader or his designee. Second, upon receipt of the motion, 
     the Speaker would have the power to postpone debate and votes 
     on the motion and final passage for up to two hours.
       I consider these conditions to be reasonable as they would 
     allow the minority a vote on its position on major issues and 
     at the same time allow the majority a reasonable amount of 
     time within which to prepare its response to the minority's 
     alternative. Theoretically, limiting control of the motion to 
     recommit to the Minority Leader or his designee would ensure 
     that the motion would be used in a serious, constructive 
     manner. Members with fringe views would be unable to make 
     frivolous motions.
       A third change I would recommend involves clause 2(l) (5) 
     and (6) of House Rule XI which respectively provide for a 
     three day period within which members may file supplemental, 
     additional or minority views to be included in a committee's 
     report, and an additional three day period for members to 
     review the committee report before the measure is considered 
     by the House. In his recent statement before the Joint 
     Committee, Mr. Solomon expressed concern that the opportunity 
     for members to review committee reports was too often being 
     waived due to scheduling considerations. Let me say I 
     empathize with Mr. Solomon and hope that my plan alleviates 
     some of his concerns.
       My proposal tries to balance the legitimate need for 
     flexibility in scheduling legislation for floor action with 
     the important right of members to express their alternative 
     views and to review committee reports prior to debating a 
     measure on the House floor. I don't believe the rule as it is 
     presently written allows us to use our time efficiently. 
     Presently, the three day period for filing views begins to 
     toll the day immediately following the day on which a 
     committee orders a measure reported and expires at 
     midnight of the third day. Since presently there is no 
     automatic authority for a committee to file immediately 
     upon the expiration of this third day, it may be another 
     day before the committee files its report, and yet another 
     day before the report becomes available in the document 
     room. Only then will the three day layover period for 
     members' review of the report begin. Thus, more than two 
     weeks may go by before a bill becomes available for floor 
     consideration.
       In the interest of both preserving this important right and 
     using our time well I would recommend the following: tighten 
     the way in which the three day period for filing views is 
     calculated by starting the clock tolling immediately upon a 
     committee's ordering of a bill reported. Often many valuable 
     hours remain in a day on which a bill is ordered reported. 
     Additionally, I would recommend giving committees automatic 
     authority to file until midnight of the third day.
       These changes arguably would achieve the dual goal of 
     allowing for more efficient scheduling of legislation and 
     insuring an adequate period for members to file and review 
     views. While the Committee on Rules would still reserve its 
     right to waive the three day layover requirement, I believe 
     that if these changes were to be made the need for such 
     waivers would be significantly reduced. In fact, I think it 
     is safe to assert that had this proposal been in place 
     earlier this Congress, none of the waivers of the three day 
     layover period granted by my Committee would have been 
     necessary.
       My final recommendation is that the House, in some manner, 
     implement the Oxford-Union style debate program proposed by 
     Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann. Such a program strikes me as a 
     useful vehicle for conducting thoughtful, substantive, and 
     balanced debate on important national issues. Unlike one-
     minutes or special orders which tend to be one-sided 
     monologues free of contest or rebuttal, such a program would 
     allow for a meaningful exchange of ideas between members and 
     would serve as a valuable supplement to our regular debate 
     time on major legislation.
       In closing, I would like to add that I agree with the 
     prevailing sentiment that procedural or mechanical changes 
     alone will not cure the ailments of this Institution. 
     Attitudinal change is as important an ingredient. I am 
     encouraged by the progress that is already being made in this 
     area and hope that we can sustain this spirit of cooperation 
     throughout the 103rd Congress.
       I again thank the members of the Joint Committee for this 
     opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy to 
     answer any questions.
                                  ____
                                  

          From Moakley Substitute for H.R. 3804, Aug. 1, 1994

     SEC. 112. AVAILABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION.

       (a) Views.--Clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended--
       (1) in its first sentence, by inserting ``and including the 
     day the measure or matter is approved'' after ``holiday''; 
     and
       (2) after its second sentence, by inserting the following 
     new sentence: ``Upon receipt of all such views, the committee 
     may (without permission of the House) file the report until 
     midnight of the third such calendar day.''.
                                                                    ____


   Amendment to H.R. 3801 Offered by Mr. Moakley, September 19, 1994

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994''.

                          ____________________