[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3189-H3190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 155 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 155
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported before May 23,
1997, providing for consideration or disposition of any of
the following measures:
(1) A concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment
thereto, a conference report thereon, or an amendment
reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
(2) The bill (H.R. 1469) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for
overseas peacekeeping efforts, including those in Bosnia, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other
purposes, an amendment thereto, a conference report thereon,
or an amendment reported in disagreement from a conference
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for one hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and
include extraneous matter.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is very straightforward and simple.
As has actually just been discussed in the extended 1-minute we just
had, it waves clause 4(b) of rule XI, which requires a two-thirds vote
to consider a rule on the same day it is reported. That is all it does.
In this case the exemption is very narrow, as it applies to two
specific measures, the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution conference
report and the emergency supplemental bill, as we just heard in the
colloquy between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman
from New York.
In an effort to avoid postponement of the Memorial Day work period
restriction, when many Members obviously have important things to do
back in their districts, this rule will allow for expedited
consideration of these two important items. That is the purpose of the
rule, and nothing more sinister than that.
Negotiations over several extraneous items in the emergency bill
have, unfortunately, delayed timely release of these funds, and I
remain hopeful, if not optimistic, that we will be able to get this
bill to the President's desk before the weekend. I think we all share
that.
I understand that the budget agreement had been strained in the other
body by the proposed addition of a brand new Federal entitlement
program paid for in tax increases. I hope that the irony of our
balanced budget agreement being held hostage by unlimited spending and
higher taxes will not be lost on most American people.
But that is where we are, as we just hear in the extended 1-minute
colloquy. In order to be able to move these critical items in a timely
fashion, the House needs the targeted authority covered in this
resolution, again, the targeted limited authority. We frankly need to
be prepared to go forward as expeditiously as possible when that is
possible.
It is an ounce of prevention we are taking at this point. I think it
is the responsible thing to do under the important and somewhat
extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in on the threshold of
Memorial Day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this two-thirds rule.
Today's rule will allow my Republican colleagues to rush two very
important bills to the House floor. I believe we should do everything
in our power to make sure the Midwestern flood relief gets out of
Washington and into the hands of the people who need it the most as
soon as possible.
I also believe that this House should have completed its work on the
budget over a month ago, when it was actually due. But since no one has
even laid eyes on the final version of the two bills under question, I
just cannot lend my support to a rule rushing their consideration
because I am not sure what else is in those bills. They do not exist,
Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what has been put into these bills,
particularly given the unabashedly partisan provisions that were added
to the supplemental appropriations bill, provisions that all but ensure
its doom.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make something perfectly clear. There is no
problem, no problem at all, with the flood relief money for North
Dakota. There is no problem, no problem at all, with the money for our
troops in Bosnia. There is no problem with any of the emergency money
in this bill, so why did it take so long to get this bill out of
conference? Why did we have to do this rule today, waiving the two-
thirds requirement for the same day consideration of the rule?
Because, Mr. Speaker, Republican colleagues insist on holding the
Midwest flood money hostage in order to make a political point. Despite
the complete devastation of towns like Red Forks, ND, my Republican
colleagues still refuse to do what they should do, let this emergency
relief go forward.
Even though the flooding is over and the fires are put out, Mr.
Speaker, hundreds of people are still without their homes, without
their belongings, without their businesses. These are the people, Mr.
Speaker, that are waiting for our help. We should give it to them. We
should give it to them as soon as possible. We should not attach
political blackmail to a bill this urgent and a bill with this much
support.
Weeks ago President Clinton warned that he would veto a bill with
automatic continuing resolution because he believes, and I agree, that
my Republican colleagues should fulfill their constitutionally mandated
responsibilities to pass the appropriation bills by October 1, and not
close down the Government for silly political gains.
But they have attached the automatic continuing resolution anyway.
Today they want to bring it to the House floor without giving Members
enough time to find out exactly what is in it that they are voting on.
But my Republican colleagues want to get out
[[Page H3190]]
of Washington for the Memorial Day recess, and they will not drop this
political blackmail.
For my Republican colleagues to consider going away for Memorial Day
when these people are waiting for their flood relief money, which
absolutely nobody opposes, is disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker, simply and plainly, the people in North Dakota need our
help. They do not need anymore political gains, they need our help. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
would again remind our colleagues that this is a rule to keep our
options open.
It does nothing except change the two-thirds vote requirement, and
any further measure that would have to come forward would have to be
covered by another rule which, of course, the distinguished gentleman
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules, would have significant input in the shaping in
order that we could get the best possible job done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules, who can expand further on this rule we are
discussing today.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I had not even intended to speak, but I was
moved by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the
former chairman of that committee, whose place I took. And I must say,
I learned an awful lot from him over the preceding decade when he was
the chairman, but he talks about this continuing resolution and how the
President has vowed to veto the continuing resolution.
Well, just briefly we ought to discuss what is a continuing
resolution. Let us digress for a minute. If Members recall, a couple
years ago, when the Republicans and Democrats could not get together,
they could not come to an agreement. Consequently, various departments
of Government were not funded when the fiscal year began on September
30. And when that happens, if the Congress has not authorized and
appropriated the money for the operation of these departments, those
departments shut down.
That is what happened, and it was a great inconvenience to many
Americans. Many of them, if they were waiting for passports to be
expedited, they could not get them. If they have reservations on
airways and boats, many of them, because they did not have their
passports, they lost their tickets. They could not get refunds. That
was just one area.
In the IRS, many people were waiting for refunds from the Government
and they did not get them on time. If they were visiting Washington,
the Washington Monument or if they were going into the various State
parks, one of them is like the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park and the
Vanderbilt mansion up in Hyde Park, NY, they could not operate. People
were hurting; the areas were hurt in tourism. And so we decided right
then and there, we ought to do something about that.
If we cannot get together, then we ought to make some provision to
keep the Government operating, if we and the President cannot come to
an agreement.
Well, that is exactly what this debate is all about. Sometime between
now and September 30, we will have to act on the appropriation bills
that fund the various 13 departments of Government across this country.
And should one or two of those not be agreed to, then this continuing
resolution would continue to keep those departments operating, keep
those very, very good Federal workers at their jobs getting their
paychecks each month until the Congress could come to an agreement.
That is what this debate is all about.
Now, if the President wants to veto this bill simply because it has
this continuing resolution, then let the President be responsible to
the American people and to these Federal workers for having shut down
the Government. I do not think he should do that.
And, second, I really think he is bluffing. I do not think he will
veto this bill for that reason. That, to me, would be a disgrace.
So, having said that, let us get on with this resolution. Let us pass
it. We are prepared to yield back our time, if the gentleman is, and
get on with the day's business.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say that I am a little puzzled. We just went from a hard-fought battle
on adjournment, at the gentleman's request over there, which we beat
back.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I told the gentleman from Florida that the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], sitting over there, looks
like Santa Claus and not the Grinch that stole Christmas. I still think
he is Santa Claus.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who could be
misidentified as Santa Claus.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be compared with Santa
Claus. I hope the gentleman is not referring to my girth.
I think that the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from New
York and myself have adequately described this, and, thus, I have
yielded back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________