[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10053-H10054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RULES MEETING

  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time for the purposes 
of making an announcement about a Committee on Rules meeting.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed another, I believe, 14 or 15, I 
did not count the number, questions of privileges being noticed on the 
floor dealing with the Sanchez/Dornan situation. This brings to, just a 
guesstimate, to about 45 that now are pending. We have delayed the 
actions of the House by 1 hour, more than 1 hour just now. If we

[[Page H10054]]

were to entertain those 45-plus notices over the next couple of days, 
that would take up probably 24 legislative hours of this body.
  This body has been working diligently to try to complete the work of 
the House so that we can adjourn for this year. As everyone knows, 
there are three appropriation bills that are contentious. One of those 
deals with the Census issue which we are told now is about to be worked 
out. Another dealt with an abortion issue on the Foreign Operations 
appropriation bill. We are told that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] has just about completed a compromise on that, and we are told 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], in negotiations 
with the House, has just about completed a compromise on the testing.
  So that the only issues really to come before this body between now 
and the time that we would adjourn would be those three appropriation 
bills, the fast track bill, whether my colleagues are for or against 
it, I happen to be opposed to it, and some other measures such as these 
nine United States-China relation bills that are terribly important on 
the floor, now that it is going to take about 14 or 15 hours.
  My point is, we have been delayed now so that we will not be able to 
complete the day's work on these China bills even if we stay until 
midnight, which we are, incidentally. We are going to stay at least 
until midnight. But even then, we will have to carry over five or six 
of these China bills until tomorrow, and then that just delays any 
chance that we might have had, I think, of adjourning for the year this 
Saturday, and even perhaps this Sunday.
  But that part is irrelevant. The part that concerns me is that in all 
of the notices that have been brought before the House, I believe, and 
I say this sincerely, with no animosity, and I will not yield until I 
am finished, but I will be glad to at some point, I just believe, I 
sincerely believe, that they are deleterious in nature, and I have 
discussed this with the Speaker of the House and asked him if he would 
not declare them deleterious, keeping in mind that if one or two wanted 
to be offered each day, certainly knowing the sincerity by some Members 
of the other side of the aisle that we ought to, as my colleagues know, 
go along with that. But the Speaker is hesitant to do that because he 
wants to keep comity in the House.
  But, nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Committee on Rules 
to see to it that we complete our work on this session, and that is why 
I have scheduled a Committee on Rules meeting, and I would make notice 
to the members of the Committee on Rules that we will be considering in 
the Committee on Rules a two-thirds waiver for remaining appropriation 
bills from now until Sunday, which means that if the appropriation 
bills were complete, we could bring them up in the same day.
  This is, and when I finish I will yield, this is typical of 
nomenclature that we do each year. We would also include in that rule 
permission for suspension days to be brought up with notice to the 
minority any day between now and Sunday so that we could take care of 
those significant issues that were not controversial and perhaps deal 
with them between now and Sunday.
  But, also, I am just going to reluctantly recommend to the leadership 
that we limit in some way the notices that Members can bring on 
questions of privilege. Perhaps, and I have not decided how we will do 
this, but perhaps giving that right to the minority leader and the 
majority leader so that we can have negotiations that try to work out 
some comity and complete the work of the House. It is terribly 
important for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. 
Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I support what he is 
trying to do for the simple reason that I have heard the notices read 
over and over again protesting the fact that we do not have a result 
yet in the election contest, and I just say to my friends that the 
notices are written in such a way that they are totally one-sided, 
there is no time for debate, and I sit there looking at the newspaper 
headlines in California saying that the secretary of state has found 
that 60 percent of the registrations by one group of people who were 
registered and voted manipulated--it says that 60 percent of these 
registrations were illegal.
  And yet the idea, if my colleagues listen to the text of the 
privileged resolutions, which, in essence, are arguments themselves, 
they talk about Marine barracks being questioned and nuns being 
questioned. And of course those may be in the huge universe of tens of 
thousands of people, but the fact that one group alone was found to 
have had 60 percent of their registrations being fraudulent, and the 
idea that this House should not investigate that, and that there is no 
chance for a debate on these privileged motions, they are simply read 
over and over again in rote.

                              {time}  1600

  They were obviously written in such a way as to make the argument in 
the resolution itself.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I am not going to yield until I am able to finish my 
sentence.
  That, I think, offers no value to this deliberative body, because 
there is absolutely no time given on the other side, and it gives the 
impression to the people out in the countryside that there is not a 
group that had 60 percent fraudulent registrations, which in fact has 
been the finding of the secretary of state, which would justify any 
deliberative body in the world at least the idea that we should go 
forward and at least have a further investigation until we find all the 
information.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, first of all, I have to 
yield to the gentleman from Texas who asked me to yield in the first 
place, and then, if the gentlewoman would let him speak for her, 
because we have to get on with the regular order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Well, I would like to correct the Record in a couple of 
ways, if I can.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will first yield to the gentleman 
from Texas.
  Would the gentleman from Texas rather I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut?
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, that is fine.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I just did not want to slight the gentleman from Texas.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. There 
are two points here. One has to do with our colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard] who, in fact, has introduced two 
privileged motions, two different dates. Both are different, if the 
gentleman will check and take a look at the Record.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman explain to us how 
they are different?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just finish.
  Second, there is nothing, nothing, nothing we would like better on 
this side of the aisle on this issue than to have the opportunity for 
debate. Every time one of these, after the notice and the vote comes 
due, we would love to have a debate. In fact, what happens is that a 
Member gets up and calls for the motion to be tabled, so in fact, we 
cannot have a debate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have already had 
that debate.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Allow us the opportunity to have the debate on this.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order. Reclaiming my time, the 
Gephardt debate amendment, or questions of privileges, has been debated 
on the floor. I now yield back.

                          ____________________