[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5328-H5329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a 
violation of the House rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just so we can all be clear about this rule and about 
the statements made by the gentleman from Texas regarding the lack of 
leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) did not even come to 
the Committee on Rules yesterday to testify and ask that his amendment 
be made in order. His amendment does go to the issue of recycling. But 
this rule does make in order an amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) which will allow us to vote to put 
more money into the recycling program. This issue will receive fair 
debate under this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I really am amazed that this recycling could 
become a partisan issue. It is bizarre. There is a clear commitment, 
there was on the part of the Democrats when they controlled the House 
of Representatives, and there is on the part of the Republicans, to 
recycle our waste. This should not be a partisan issue. This is 
something that all Americans agree with and support.
  I know just from personal experience when I became Chair of this 
committee, one of the things that we set about to do was to make sure 
that everyone understood what the rules were. So we sent a memo around 
to all the Members' offices. We also made sure that all trash cans were 
labeled, ``mixed paper,'' ``wet waste,'' ``fine paper.'' What it comes 
down to is the Members. The Members have to provide the leadership in 
their own offices to recycle this waste.

                              {time}  1300

  I do not understand why this is partisan. This is something we should 
all be unified in. Besides, there is the fact that the amendment that 
the gentleman spoke about was accepted. We accepted the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). We thought it was 
a positive development.
  The fact is that it is the Members, Republican and Democrat, that 
have to show the leadership in their own office to use their 
wastebaskets in a proper way. The Members need to provide the 
leadership in their offices, whether they are Democrats or Republicans 
or Independents; we have an Independent in the House. We all need to 
make sure that we put the trash in the right place.
  The cloakrooms are going to follow suit. We need to organize a little 
bit better. The Architect's office is committed to this. We have called 
them in on the carpet and said we want to get a concerted effort and 
focus from the Architect's office on it. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, there 
is a real commitment here. This is not a partisan issue. We need to 
recycle our waste. It makes sense. It makes money. It saves us money. I 
think we should put this to rest right now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. With regard to the comments from the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules was so enthusiastic about 
addressing this problem that they have allowed us an entire 5 minutes 
to discuss the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr). It is the same kind of priority we have had in 3 of the last 
3\1/2\ years with no recycling coordinator.
  With regard to the comments of the gentleman from New York, that the 
problem was the Members, I am surprised that any Member recycles. The 
rules that are given out are confusing. They were sometimes in direct 
error with regard to recycling practices. Furthermore, the level of 
commitment is such that a few months ago the custodial workers had had 
to bring their own plastic liners in order to do recycling.
  Member compliance, as was noted in this secretive report, is a 
problem because many Members are not even convinced there is a 
recycling program. It is true that all, but I think, 11 Republican 
Members of this House, who have said they were willing to participate 
in voluntary recycling, but they are not given the guidelines, nor are 
their staffs, to ensure that this program works.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it must be an interesting debate for many who are 
listening to determine what we might be debating on, but I think it is 
important because this is a very valuable appropriations process; that 
is, for the legislative branch appropriations.
  What that really means to our constituents is the services that we 
provide in our offices, and in particular, in our district offices. So 
this is important, that we have caseworkers that deal with Social 
Security and veterans' benefits, Medicare issues, that we help with 
immigration issues. In my office we are very busy. Now that the summer 
has come, there are passport issues.
  Frankly, we rise to discuss this because it has value. Among those 
values, of course, is to ensure that we do the right thing, which 
includes, as my colleague has just spoken about, recycling and showing 
the right example.
  I am disappointed in this rule for several reasons. One, my good 
friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was concerned about 
not only the environment, but respecting the options that our employees 
might have in traveling to work; that is, in compliance with keeping 
the environment safe and clean, giving them the opportunity to leave 
their cars at home and to take bus passes, as opposed to driving.
  Companies throughout this country encourage carpooling and using the 
buses, but yet, an amendment that might have done that that was agreed 
to by the Committee on Appropriations now may suffer a point of order 
because it was not seen fit in the Committee on Rules to give it a 
waiver, so we could in fact provide this option to our very dutiful 
employees who come every day, and who themselves may want to use the 
kind of transportation services that would give them the option.
  I would additionally say, since I think the greatest focus of the 
legislative branch appropriations should in fact be the constituency 
services that help you in America get the job done, I am disappointed, 
and this document, I think, that I have before me is about 51 pages 
that show the politically motivated investigations that we have in this 
Congress. At this point in time they are still going on.
  We have the Burton committee, that has spent already $6 million. None 
of that is translated into any constituency services. It is still going 
on, and buried down in this appropriations bill is more money for a 
committee that leaked information out into the public on one of the 
witnesses that should not have ever been leaked.
  We have a Teamsters investigation of working men and women going on, 
now $2,530,000. That is buried deeply in this legislation. More money 
will be expended on that. Who knows what we will get out of it.
  My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that I wish we could have been similar to 
the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act rule, which I 
support, which gives comfort to Americans by providing an oversight so 
that taxpayers are are protected. That is the kind of business we 
should be doing on

[[Page H5329]]

the floor of the House. That is to ensure that we do the kind of work 
that translates to our constituents.
  I think there are 51 pages of politically motivated investigatory 
activities. They have already spent $8 million, and now in the 
appropriations bill we do not know how much more, and neither of the 
committees have brought about any results.
  I would think we would do well to pass this amendment dealing with 
the recycling, to pass the amendment dealing with the issue of the bus 
passes, and spend more of our dollars enhancing the constituency 
services of our offices.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
which would prohibit use of funds from the reserve fund after October 
1, 1998. The amendment would allow, however, the payment of obligations 
legitimately incurred before the October 1 deadline.
  The effect of the amendment would be a return to paying for 
unexpected costs through an expense resolution approved by a vote of 
the House, as we have in past Congresses.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     specified in Section 3 of this resolution. The amendment may 
     be offered only by Representative Hoyer of Maryland or his 
     designee, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall be 
     debatable for 30 minutes.
       Sec. 3. The amendment described in Section 2 is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for payments from the reserve fund for unanticipated 
     expenses of committees pursuant to clause 5(a) of rule XI of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives, or to pay the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the House of 
     Representatives who certifies, approves, or processes any 
     disbursement of funds from any such fund pursuant to an 
     allocation approved by the Committee on House Oversight on or 
     after October 1, 1998.''
                                  ____



        the vote on the previous question: what it really means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I urge that the previous question be 
defeated, and that we have the opportunity to offer the Hoyer amendment 
as part of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that while this rule 
is structured, the amendments it makes in order are Democratic 
amendments.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that funding for the 
legislative branch has been pared down significantly over 4 years, 
resulting in a 15 percent downsizing. The underlying legislation is 
bipartisan, and we should congratulate this subcommittee for their hard 
work by adopting this rule and moving on to debate the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this resolution will be postponed until later today.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________