[Pages H9-H23]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MAKING IN ORDER IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION ADOPTING
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
immediately to consider in the House a resolution adopting the rules of
the House of Representatives for the 104th Congress; that the
resolution be considered as read; that the resolution be debatable
initially for 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the
majority leader and the minority leader, or their designees; that the
previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution to final
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question, except that the question of adopting the resolution shall be
divided among nine parts, to wit: Each of the eight sections of title
I, and then title II; each portion of the divided question shall be
debatable separately for 20 minutes, to be equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader, or their
designees, and shall be disposed of in the order stated, but if the
yeas and nays are ordered on the question of adopting any portion of
the divided question, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on
that question until a later time during the consideration of the
resolution; and, pending the question of adopting the ninth portion of
the divided question, it shall be in order to move the previous
question thereon, and if the previous question is ordered, to move that
the House commit the resolution to a select committee, with or without
instructions, and that the previous question be considered as ordered
on the motion to commit to final adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. BONIOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, under my
reservation I would like to ask the gentleman
[[Page H10]] from Texas [Mr. Armey] several questions about his
unanimous-consent request.
First of all, does the gentleman's request allow us to offer an
amendment to ban gifts by lobbyists?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, You are entitled
under the rules to offer a germane amendment in your motion to commit
if it is ruled by the Parliamentarian that such an amendment is
germane.
Mr. BONIOR. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I
would propound to my distinguished friend from Texas another question:
Is your request an open amendment process which allows Members the
opportunity to offer germane amendments? We have the opportunity to
offer germane amendments?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, I am advised by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on
Rules, that the rule is more open than any we have ever had in the
past.
Mr. BONIOR. Is the gentleman saying that no amendments are in order
under the request and this is a closed rule?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, there are plenty of
amendments in order.
Mr. BONIOR. Does this afford the minority a right to offer an
amendment, I would ask the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am again
advised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of
the Committee on Rules, that my colleague can include any amendment he
wants in the motion to commit so long as it meets the test of
germaneness.
Mr. BONIOR. Will we have time to debate the motion to commit?
Mr. ARMEY. I believe under the rules of the House it is a
nondebatable motion.
Mr. BONIOR. So we can offer the motion and we cannot debate it?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, there will be about 3\1/2\
hours of debate, and it is the judgment of this Member that there will
be plenty of opportunity within that time since time will be allocated
to the minority for debate purposes to make the points that the
gentleman might want to make related to their motion to commit.

{time} 1430

It is a common practice that we used many times when we were in the
minority exercising our prerogative to make a motion to commit.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding we will not be able
to offer amendments on the motion the gentleman has put forward, and
that we will not be able, for instance, to offer the amendment that we
wish to offer on the gift ban.
In fact, I would ask another question of my friend. Does this request
envision a division of the open-amendment process for the Congressional
Accountability Act to be considered at the end of the day?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Perhaps at this point I might address the Speaker and
express my wonderment as to whether or not the gentleman is going to
make an objection.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, let me just
say that given that the gentleman has informed the House that he is
requesting two completely closed rules, two gag rules, I might add, on
the first day of the Congress, I object.
The SPEAKER. An objection has been heard.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican
Conference, since there is no Committee on Rules yet, and the Committee
on Rules has not met yet to organize and will not until tomorrow, by
direction of the Republican Conference, I call up a privileged
resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.
Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives
for the One Hundred Fourth Congress. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The resolution shall be debatable
initially for 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled
by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
designees. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except as specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be
divided among nine parts, to wit: each of the eight sections
of title I; and title II. Each portion of the divided
question shall be debatable separately for 20 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their designees, and shall be disposed of
in the order stated.
Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the ninth portion
of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that
the House commit the resolution to a select committee, with
or without instructions. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to commit to final
adoption without intervening motion.

The SPEAKER. The resolution is a matter of privilege. The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the distinguished minority leader, or in this case the
minority whip, or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a special rule
authorized by the Republican Conference providing for the consideration
of a resolution adopting the rules of the House for the 104th Congress.
While such a special rule is not unprecedented, I think the last time
it was done was back in 1893. So this is an unusual situation. We have
never before had an objection to the rules being brought up by
unanimous consent.
As returning Members are aware, ordinarily the resolution adopting
House rules at the beginning of a Congress is considered as privileged
in the House and subject to just 1 hour of debate, with no amendments,
and on up-or-down vote following the vote on the previous question and
any motion to commit the resolution.
This special rule allows for a different and more expansive
consideration of the House rules resolution.
First, instead of just 1 hour of debate, which is customary in this
House and traditional over the years, certainly all of the years I have
been here, it provides for a total of 3\1/2\ hours of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the majority and the minority party.
Second, instead of just one vote on adopting the resolution, the
special rule allows for nine separate votes, not counting a vote on
committing the resolution. I would again call this to the attention of
the Members on that side of the aisle. It allows for nine separate
votes, not counting a vote on committing the resolution, which I assume
the minority would be offering.
This time will be divided as follows:
First, there will be 30 minutes of general debate on the resolution,
equally divided between the majority and the minority.
Second, there will follow 20 minutes of debate each on the eight
sections contained in title I of the resolution, and that is the
Contract with America: The Bill of Accountability Act.
Mr. Speaker, each of these sections will be subject to a separate
vote under an automatic division of the question.
Third, there will be additional 20 minutes of debate on title II of
the resolution, containing an additional 23 sections, followed by a
separate vote on title II. That is nine votes altogether.
It would be in order for the minority, prior to the final vote on
adopting title II of this bill, to offer a motion to commit the
resolution.
However, I want to point out that this special rule does not allow
for a separate previous question vote on title II. So if the minority
wishes to have a previous question vote to alter
[[Page H11]] the terms of this procedure and make in order additional
amendments, it must defeat the previous question on this special rule.
They have that prerogative.
We are allowing the minority its traditional previous question vote
through this rule, but we are not being so generous as to allow the
minority two previous question votes. We are going to be here until
10:30, 11:30, possibly even 2 o'clock in the morning, and we want to
expedite this as quickly as possible.
I would also point out in that same regard that the previous question
is automatically ordered on the adoption of each of the eight sections
in title I.
That means that there will be no separate previous question votes on
those sections, nor will there be an opportunity to commit any of those
sections, with or without instructions.
That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the minority will be precluded
in its final motion to commit on title II from revisiting any matter
that has been adopted in title I. They can still take that opportunity,
if they wish. On the contrary, all of the rules of the House that have
been adopted to that point are still subject to further amendment in
any motion to commit, and any additional amendments to House rules will
be in order as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have designed in this procedure the
fairest and most open process on a House rules resolution in over a
century in this House. We have allowed over three times as much debate
as is usual on opening day, and nine times as many votes.
We will be giving Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity
to separately vote on each of the nine items contained in our Contract
with America as embodied in title I. And the minority will retain its
usual right to alter this procedure further if it defeats the previous
question on this rule, and it will retain its usual right to commit the
resolution with a final amendment at the conclusion of debate on title
II.
I therefore, Mr. Speaker, urge adoption of this special rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, perhaps for a colloquy
with the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last November, the American people voted for change.
They sent a message to this House, a message of anger and
frustration.
We, in our party, have heard that message, the message of working
families whose incomes are squeezed, working families who are tired of
business as usual, who feel that no one speaks for them.
In the days and weeks and months ahead, we, in the Democratic Party
intend to be their voice.
When tax cuts are proposed, we intend to make sure that it is working
families who benefit, not the wealthiest few.
In our efforts to balance the budget, we intend to make sure that our
seniors are not robbed of their right to Social Security or Medicare,
that our children are not deprived of their right to education and
practical training for good jobs.
And we intend to make sure that when we talk about reforming this
House, those reforms are real, concrete, and that they make a
difference. We have seen the symbols of change today. In what is the
greatest tribute to, this, the world's greatest democratic institution,
the gavel has changed hands. Power has shifted.
The Republican Party has promised an agenda of reform. We, Democrats
intend to make sure they keep their promises. Today, we deal with the
rules of this House. These issues may seem arcane, removed from the
lives of average Americans. But what we do today sends a powerful
signal. For today, we define the rules and standards that we, as
Members of Congress, are determined to live by.
Most Democrats will support most of the reforms that are being
offered. Some of them were our own reforms, reforms that were blocked
last year, in a cynical move for partisan advantage by the Republican
Party. Some of them are of little consequence. Whether they pass or not
makes little difference. But, none of these reforms go far enough. They
stop short. They are just window dressing, hiding the real shift in
power the Republicans intend to bring about.
The American people voted for change last November. They did not vote
to create a Congress that is for sale to the highest bidder. They voted
for change. But they did not vote for a Congress where leaders take
care of their own private profits before they take care of the public
business.
They voted for change. But they did not vote for a Congress that is
beholden to multimillionaires. And they did not vote to allow Members
of Congress to trade on the public trust, and become millionaires
themselves. They did not vote for a Congress that is entangled with
special interests or tied to the powerful concerns of foreign
corporations.
The American people did not vote to open the doors of Congress to the
Power Rangers or the powers that be, but to the power of the average
American. With this paltry package of reforms, the Republican Party has
shown that they just don't get the message.
We are about to witness the biggest takeover by special interests in
the history of the U.S. Congress, and this so-called reform package
does nothing to stop it. This rules package is nothing more than a
string of broken promises.
After the years of whining and complaining on the Republican side
about the damages to democracy of closed rules, what is the first thing
they offer us? A closed rule. Not just one closed rule, but a closed
rule within a closed rule.
Where is democracy, where is open debate, where is the free flow of
ideas? Not one amendment will be able to be offered to anything the
Republicans do today. Not one amendment.
This would not matter so much, if the Republicans had offered us real
reform. But their package leaves out the single most important effort
that could help stop the influence of special interests, a ban on gifts
from lobbyists.
Last year, the Republicans ran from reform, and blocked passage of
the gift ban bill in the Senate. This year, they are going even
further. With this closed rule, with this gag rule, they have prevented
a gift ban from being offered as a separate amendment.
We need to defeat the previous question on this gag rule, to provide
an open rule that will allow us to get to the real issues of reform,
including a ban on gifts from special interests.
This is essentially the same gift ban provision that was passed
overwhelmingly last year, Republicans claimed to be for it then, now
that they are in control, it is time to get real about reform, and pass
this ban on gifts.
In recent weeks, it has become clear that there is a serious loophole
in even this major reform. We have discovered that there are backdoors
to getting gifts. And one of these back doors is through book deals,
with lucrative advances and multimillion dollar royalty contracts.
I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that we can offer an open rule which will allow an amendment to
directly address this issue of whether a Member of Congress should be
allowed to earn millions of dollars in book royalties while employed at
the taxpayers expense.
We intend to try to offer an amendment that would cap royalties from
any individual book to one-third of a Member's annual salary.
Let me make this very clear: by making this proposal today, we are
not trying to discourage Members from writing books. Public officials
all the way back to ancient Greece have written books, including many
esteemed Members of this body.
But at the same time, no Member should be able to use the prestige of
this office to cut a special deal.
No Member of Congress should be allowed to use this office--this
public trust--for personal gain. No Member of Congress should make a
book deal in one day that equals far more than the average American
family earns in their entire lifetime.
A one-third cap on royalties is reasonable. It is more than generous.
The public expects us to do no less.
We were not elected to this body to get rich; we're here to do the
people's business and that is a full time job.
It is important today that we send the word out across America that
we are serious about reform, that this
[[Page H12]] Congress is not for sale, our offices are not open to the
highest bidder.
A vote for the previous question and for this gag rule is a vote to
shut out real reform. It is a vote to fling open the doors to special
interests. It is a vote to continue the old order.
I urge my colleagues, especially those of you for whom this is your
very first vote, those of you who ran on the promise of reform, do not
side with the special interest. Let us open the door to real reform.
Vote no on the previous question and let's come back with a rule that
will allow us to ban gifts from lobbyists and to limit the royalties of
Members of Congress.
This House of Representatives is not for sale. Say no to gifts. Say
no to excessive book deals. Support an open rule.
{time} 1440

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I might
consume just briefly.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my good friend, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], and he is a good friend and I
have deep respect for him, but I believe, David, that you were a member
of the task force on the ethics bipartisan task force that allowed
Members to take book royalties from legitimate book firms back, what
year was that, back in 1981 or 1982, I believe. 1989, it was even more
recent.
But let me just address this rule business, because when Speaker
Gingrich called me before him when we were going to talk about the
formation of the new Committee on Rules, he instructed me, along with
the other eight Republicans that will make up that committee to be as
open and fair and accountable as we possibly can. As the gentleman
knows, in recent years under the past two Speakers, we have gone to
almost a totally structured rule process, where Members on both sides
of the aisle have literally been gagged. The House was not allowed to
work its will.
The gentleman knows that conservative Democrats on your side of the
aisle complained bitterly about it, people like the gentleman from
Minnesota, Tim Penny, and the gentleman from Louisiana, Bill Tauzin,
and others, because they were not allowed to offer amendments on this
floor.
Speaker Gingrich has asked me to be as open and fair as we possible
can, and to reverse the fact that 70 percent of all of the rules that
came to this floor last year were closed or structured or restricted
rules. He has asked us to try to make an open rule process the norm,
and not the exception. We are going to do that. I am going to follow
his instructions. Now, at this point, let me yield to a Member who
served on the Speaker's task force to reform this House. I had the
privilege of serving with him. We developed these kinds of reforms that
we are offering here today, 8 of them in the contract for America, 23
in title II, all of which are additional reforms to the existing 1993
Democrat rules package that is here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a very
distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier].
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1450

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, the
soon to be chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this
time, Mr. Speaker.
Let me just say that as I have listened to the words from my very
dear friend, the gentleman from Mount Clemens, MI [Mr. Bonior], who has
described this as a closed rule, I have to say that it is absolutely
preposterous to claim that what is clearly the most open rule on an
opening day in recent congressional history is closed. Now, in the past
we have regularly seen basically a single up-or-down vote, but as
Speaker Gingrich said in his remarks earlier, we are going to be today
casting votes on eight different provisions, providing Members with the
opportunity to look at virtually every aspect of the preamble of our
contract with America.
As I listen to the arguments about a closed rule here, I cannot help
but think about the fact that nearly every single week during the
second session of the 103d Congress I stood right there at that desk
and asked the majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt], or his representative, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior], or the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], or another Member
when we could expect the congressional reform package to get to the
House floor.
Mr. Speaker, the response was regularly ``Well, we are hoping that we
will be able to get it up first in early spring of 1994.'' Then it was
late spring, then early summer, then midsummer then before we adjourned
for August, and then after August it was before we adjourned. As we all
know very well, at the end of the 103d Congress, we got a little speck
and nothing more than that when we passed this rule calling for
congressional compliance.
It seems to me that as we look at this issue, this issue is a very
important one which we have struggled to get our friends who were
formerly in the majority to bring to the House floor, and because of
their recalcitrance on the issue of congressional reform over the past
2 years, we are on the opening day bringing these reforms as
expeditiously as we possibly can. Why? Because we have debated these
throughout virtually every campaign. On every measure that dealt with
the issue of congressional reform, I attempted to defeat the previous
question, to make in order our congressional reform package, which
again had been promised for consideration by the leadership in the
past.
I believe very strongly that this rule is going to allow us to have
free, fair, and open debate on this extraordinarily important issue, on
this extraordinarily important day. I say we have got to get the job of
congressional reform completed and completed today, so that we can do
what the American people are anticipating from us in the next 100 days.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from
California, [Mr. Dreier], he also stood at that desk over there every
single day and he condemned closed rules as being a violation of the
democratic process, and he promised that if he were in charge we would
never again see closed rules.
And where are we today? The first day of the first session of
Congress, when you are finally in charge, and the very first rule you
bring to the House is a closed rule. Now I would just have to say to
the gentlemen from California and New York, Mr. Dreier and Mr. Solomon,
it is a curious thing to see on the first day of the House these two
gentlemen, who took up so much of our time talking about closed rules,
to be the authors of a closed rule on the first day of this Congress.
It is indeed also curious that, after so much talk about reform, that
they would bring to the House floor today a set of rules that excludes
any reference to reform of the process we have today under which
lobbyists are permitted to buy gifts, meals, and thinly disguised
vacation trips for Members of Congress.
I must say it is especially curious inasmuch as in October the
Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, was on ``Meet the Press'' saying,
and I quote, ``I am prepared to pass a bill that bans lobbyists from
dealing with Members of Congress in terms of gifts.''
Yet here we are on the first day, the first opportunity to do it, and
not only is it not a part of the Republican package, we are prohibited
from even offering an amendment to the Republican package to prohibit
lobbyists from buying gifts, free meals, and thinly disguised vacations
for Members of Congress.
They will not allow us to offer that amendment for a very simple
reason, because they know that it would pass overwhelmingly.
The Speaker and his leadership allies fought tooth and nail last year
to kill the ban on gifts from lobbyists. They tried to keep the bill
from being considered in the House, and when that failed, they
encouraged a Senate filibuster which succeeded in killing it,
[[Page H13]] even though twice it passed the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly and with a bipartisan majority. They said they were
against it because somehow or another it interfered with the grassroots
lobbying.
I have an amendment which we will bring up when this previous
question is defeated, which says that gifts will no longer be permitted
to be given to Members of Congress in the forms of meals, free trips,
free costly golf vacations or anything else from members of the lobby,
from the lobbyists.
I urge the new Republican Members, today you will decide whether you
are in lock-step with this new Republican majority and the Speaker, or
you are committed to the public. If you are committed to the public,
vote against the previous question. Let us do the public's business
today and prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts, free meals, free
vacations, free golf trips, and all other manner of freebies to Members
of the House of Representatives.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Texas mentioned lockstep. Yes, we Republicans are
in lockstep. We are in lockstep with the message that was sent by the
American people on November 8, and we are going to accomplish the
things they asked us to do.
That means shrinking the size of this Congress by one-third,
eliminating 600 jobs, and setting the example for what we will do when
we take up the 100 days Contract With America in which we will shrink
Government and we will grow the private sector. That is what we are
laying the groundwork here today for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished member
from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for
yielding me this time.
It is the 4th of January, but it seems like the 4th of July, to me.
It is Independence Day. It is Independence Day in this House, as we
begin to set ourselves free from the shackles of what America knows is
the status quo, business as usual.
I hardly need to remind my colleagues about the Dark Ages, when
committee chairmen zealously perpetuated their turfs; when Members
missed committee meetings because votes were taken by proxy; when
committee meetings could be held in the dead of the night behind closed
doors, sometimes locked closed doors, locked to the minority; when
Members could come to this floor and apparently wilfully disclose
classified information without admonition; when large tax bills could
pass on the slimmest of margins and huge spending packages could slide
through on a voice vote.
The excesses of Congresses past are well documented. On November 8,
Americans sent a message. Well, Mr. Speaker, message received. Limiting
the terms of committee chairmen, banning proxy voting, establishing
truth in budgeting, reducing staff, opening up and streamlining the
committee process, mandating recorded votes on spending bills, these
changes today will make this a more responsive and responsible House.
By laying this groundwork for a new beginning, we take the first
concrete steps toward earning back the trust of the people that we are
here to serve.
I am pleased that this rules package includes a simple but important
requirement that Members wishing access to classified material sign an
oath of secrecy, a powerful change that should increase Members'
awareness and accountability where national security is at stake.
At the same time, we are taking major steps to bring sunshine into
the daily workings of this House's business and to ensure individual
Members' accountability for all of their actions. All around, this is a
balanced of package of substantive change.
It is not exclusive. There will be more, and I invite the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] to join me in
sponsoring my bill that bans lobbyist-paid travel, if he wants further
reform. This is the beginning step.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of these new rules
today. It is not the final thing, but it is the most important thing we
are going to do, because it is going to show America we are serious
about making the changes. Of course, there will be more oncoming. Today
it is a good agenda. It is an American agenda, and it is today's
agenda, so let us pass it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud new Member of the 104th
Congress, and I want to speak just for a moment to my fellow new
Members, because we all campaigned for reform. I urge you, do not get
cold feet.
I come armed with the Constitution of the United States of America
that says ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union,'' among other things, ``secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity,'' not to Congress, not to
individual congressional Members, but the people want for themselves
the right to live and the right to know that their Congress is not
owned and bought.

{time} 1500

The American people want reform, not phony reform but real reform.
They want to know that the ties of special interests are now really
broken. They want to know that the days of free meals and free trips
and special privileges are over. They are angry and we did hear their
voices. We the Democratic Members heard their voices in November, and
today we want to start fresh and anew talking about reform. But we need
to go a lot further. If we want to send a real signal that we are
really changing Washington, we need to ban gifts from lobbyists and
special interests. As Members of Congress, we should not be using
public office for private gain. We are here to make change, not to
protect the old order. Let us begin by having an open debate. What is
wrong with amendments allowing us to raise the voice of the American
people? No more closed rules, no more status quo. Let the American
people realize that we are not for sale.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out to the gentlewoman, I know she is a freshman
Member, but in the last Congress, the 103d Congress, 70 percent of
every rule that came to this floor under Speaker Foley was a
restricted, closed, or modified rule. We are reversing that through
your order, sir, and we will have open rules in this House. We will
have openness, fairness, and accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Linder], the very distinguished new member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to point out that it is clear what the theme of the day
is from your side and, that is, gifts from lobbyists and that is going
to appeal not to the people in this body but to the people watching
this on C-SPAN.
It is worth noting that after 40 years of rule, including the last 2
when the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate and
also the White House, that this should have been able to have been
passed. But this rule is not about gifts from lobbyists. That is a bill
to come. This rule does not include amendments for campaign finance
reform or parking at Washington National or indeed paid travel from
lobbyists. This rule has to do with process, process of how Congress
acts, the committees, the staffs, the way we budget. We will deal with
those issues at a later date in separate bills. We have done that in
the past. We have cooperated in trying to get campaign finance reform
to the floor, in trying to get lobbying reform to this House, all in
stand-alone, individual bills. Let us be honest about it.
We understand your point of view in the minority, trying to distract
Americans' attention from the issue of the day, which is passing a rule
by which we live for the next 2 years. This rule deals with process,
how Congress conducts itself. Let us contain our comments to that
point.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
[[Page H14]] (Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like our Republican colleagues as a new
Member of this Congress, I came seeking constructive change, and of
that change I was most eager to join with our Republican colleagues the
concept of opening this House.
Yet at this first opportunity for change, this Republican rules
package fails. I do not know what they call a rule in California or New
York where you get no amendment and no alternative, but in Texas we
call that closed government.
You propose two completely closed rules, two rules that do not allow
one new Member, one old Member, one Republican, one Democrat to offer
any amendment to this package. More than that, you have done what is
unprecedented perhaps in the history of this country, and that is to
provide a closed rule within a bill that is brought up under a closed
rule.
This is not open government. This is not reform. It is more closed
government as usual. This is barring the door, slamming the door shut
and actually then barring that door for people to participate in the
process of democracy.
It was only a few months ago that the distinguished gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] suggested that when a closed rule is foisted on
this House, the Members are denied the opportunity to represent their
constituents. That is no less true today.
You have said that this is a new chapter in the history of this
House, but you have made it an edited, indeed a censored chapter. You
have said you have changed the course of business in this House, but I
would submit, to use the words of the distinguished gentleman from New
York, that it is merely shortchange.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
just to say to Members on that side of the aisle how refreshing it is
now to see Members from the Democratic Party standing up and fighting
for those minority rights that we fought for for 40 years on this
floor. We welcome you into this debate and we are going to open up this
House today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula], one of the senior Members of this House.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today is truly a momentous occasion. After
serving in the minority for 11 terms, new and historic horizons are
being opened as Republicans become the majority party in the House of
Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
We are beginning the first day of the 104th Congress with a full
schedule of much-needed internal reforms in the House of
Representatives. We will vote on eight separate reforms including a
reduction of committee staff by one-third, requiring that committee
meetings be open to the public and requiring that members of committees
be present for votes in their committees.
This new openness in the committee process is important because it is
the first step in establishing the accountability that the American
people are demanding of the Congress. The most important decisions on
legislation are often made during committee deliberations. Members of
committees become experts in the areas of the committee's jurisdiction
and other Members rely on their judgment.
One of the most important reforms we are voting on today is the ban
of proxy voting in committees. Proxy voting allows another Member to
cast a vote on legislation for a Member who is absent. Of the 22
standing committees in the last Congress, only 4 banned absentee
voting. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee which has never
allowed the use of proxy voting. All Members should be present to vote
on issues before the committee.
Accountability to the American public begins in the committee system
by Members being present for meetings and votes, and those meetings
being open to the public. We must assure all of our constituents of the
seriousness with which we approach our work of deliberating the issues
of importance to our country. Only then can the integrity of the
Congress be reestablished.
Today's action can be defined in five words: ``Accountability in the
People's House.''
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the closed
rule on the Republican rules package. This package contains many
important reforms that I support, but it does not contain the most
crucial reform, a ban on gifts from lobbyists. The gift ban is central
to our ability to break the bond between the special interests and the
Congress. That is what the public clamored for, separate special
interests from the institution of the Congress.
The Democratic proposal would ban all gifts to Members of Congress.
It bans meals, entertainment, and travel. It says no more business as
usual.
On this first day of the 104th Congress when so many hopes are pinned
on people reclaiming their Government, it is tie to end the special
interests' influence over Congress. It is time to say no. No to
dinners, no to golf junkets, no to the old style perks and privileges.
The only privilege we need is the privilege to serve in this body.
The new Republican majority claims that they are leading a revolution
to reform this institution. That is what they told the American public.
But keeping closed rules, protecting perks and privileges is just more
hypocrisy.
Support real change. Open the rule and support a gift ban.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why the Republicans oppose
the Democratic rules change in this closed rule. Our rules change makes
every rules change proposed by the Republicans today pale in
comparison. Theirs are plastic and papier mache. Ours have the hard
steel of real change because they address the key issue of the
integrity of Congress.
Today as we speak on this floor with a few Members, so many others
are enjoying this wonderful first day of service in Congress. They came
here promising to represent their districts, not the special interests.
Our rules change addresses that straightforwardly. It prohibits and
limits any gifts from lobbyists and special interest groups so that new
Members and old Members alike will not be ensnared in these special
interest tangles. And equally important, Mr. Speaker, it closes or at
least restricts a dangerous loophole.
By the rules of the House I cannot go out and give a speech and earn
one dollar. But I can go out, and in the name of writing a book,
supposedly earn legally millions of dollars. That kind of ridiculous
loophole puts this House in jeopardy and every Member of it.
I would suggest that we stick with the Democratic changes and defeat
the previous question.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to a very
distinguished new Member, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Graham].
(Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I came from South Carolina, a State that a
few years ago sent about 18 people to jail because they took shirts,
they took shoes, they took golf trips, and they sold their vote. If
Members want to reform me, I challenge them to do so. But everything in
its time. For 40 years Democrats have had control of this body to do
that.
What the American people need to know, and what I want constituents
to know at home is what we are talking about doing the first day is to
change the way this institution operates. Newt Gingrich, the new
Speaker of the House, has done something that no Speaker of the House
has ever done in this body, Republican or Democrat. He has instituted a
measure to limit his own term as Speaker. I congratulate him for doing
that. Leadership and reform begins at the top, and that is what he has
demonstrated, and on behalf of the freshman class we thank him for
doing something other than talk.
Also in this rule is a provision that would limit committee chairmen
to
[[Page H15]] serve 6 years. If we want to change America, that is a
great place to start, and that is what we are talking about today,
changing this institution to breathe new life into it.
Mr. Speaker, ideas do matter, and they are going to have a new day.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, approximately 1 hour ago you addressed
every Member of this body and the House, you addressed the entire
United States of America and you said this is the 104th Congress. Think
of it, 208 years. For 208 years, Mr. Speaker, we have existed under the
rule of the majority.
Two hundred eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, as a student of history you
know that the Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution
rejecting the Articles of Confederation that have a super majority
requirement. By a rules change, with no committee hearings, with only
20 minutes of debate, you want to strike a blow at the most fundamental
tenet of constitutional principle: rule of the majority, and revert to
the Articles of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, how can you do this on the first day of your tenure in
office?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to be somewhat amused by the shenanigans
that are going on on the floor right now when we are being told that we
are completely shackling the rights of the minority by not allowing
them to have the central reform that should be in this rules package;
that is, the gift and lobby reform.
It has to be pointed out that for 40 years Democrats have had the
opportunity to pass this fundamental gift and lobby reform, and yet
they have not been able to do it in a timely way that got through both
the House and the Senate and was signed into law. For them now to claim
that somehow, somehow this is preventing them from doing this when they
know substantively we will get to this later, the question I have is
why did they choose the gift and lobby reform as opposed to fundamental
campaign finance reform, that is the elimination of special interest
contributions, They know and I know that about $250,000 plus goes into
every single incumbent's campaign on a cyclical basis. That is real
influence that is being purchased by special interest groups, and yet
there is only one group, one group in the entire Congress, not the
House Republicans, not the Senate Democrats, not the Senate Republicans
that do not want to limit that genuine purchasing of influence, and
that group is the House Democrats.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me refresh my friend from Cleveland's memory. We did
pass the gift rule ban last Congress and it was killed in the other
body by the Republican Party.
I also would like to refresh my friend's memory and suggest to him
that we did pass campaign finance reform and it was killed also by
Republicans.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I will not yield at this point. I would yield in a second
to my friend using his time.
So we have complied with the wishes of the American people on two
basic, fundamental reforms which is banning gifts and reducing the
influence of outside interests in campaign reform. We passed them in
this House not very long ago, a few months ago, sent them over to the
Senate and they were killed by Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of congressional reform
and in support of several parts of the proposed rules package. No
Member in this Chamber has a premium on what's best for this Nation. We
all have a contract with America.
The contract to which each Member is bound, is to work in the best
interests of the American people.
On election day, we offered our services to this great country, and
voters from Rocky Mount, NC, to the Silicone Valley of California,
accepted our offer. We all have a contract with America.
That contract involves being open to the challenge of change. I will
vote for several of the reforms offered in this rules package. However,
I will vote against those proposals that are considered dangerous to
the stability of the American people or undermine the Constitution of
this country.
We must get beyond partisan politics and move to the high ground of
principle--serving all Americans.
But, real reform must include an end to gag rules. There are
important amendments that would be offered, amendments designed to
improve and perfect this rules package, but Members are muzzled because
the majority has insisted on a closed rule for this debate.
No Member can offer an amendment such as the gift ban. That is an
issue that we debated and supported last Congress. As I am informed,
the gift ban we passed would have included royalties from books. If we
are to be leaders, we must also lead in following the rules under which
we are governed. In this House, we have resolved that no Member should
be enriched beyond what the people pay. That resolve should not end
with the Speaker, it should begin with him.
I will support those thoughtful reforms that have been offered by the
majority. But, I will continue to stand up as part of the loyal
opposition when I believe pomposity, audacity and duplicity confront
us.
No party or person has an exclusive on such things as family values
and personal responsibility. Those are standards I absolutely hold
dear. And no party or person should be able to take the right to speak
and participate from any of us. Too many have sacrificed for that
precious liberty. We all, 435 Representatives, have a contract with
America. Let no one forget.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with this freest and most
open debate in congressional history, I yield 2 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Greensboro, NC [Mr. Coble].

{time} 1520

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, for having
yielded me this time.
Reform the House? We Republicans have previously engaged in this
exercise of attempting to reduce the number of staff positions and the
number of committees. So this is not a case of first impression.
But each time we proposed these reductions, they fell upon deaf ears,
and the Democrat leadership rejected our attempts to streamline the
Congress, and in so doing serve as better stewards for taxpayers.
During this session, pending passage of this proposal today, there
will be 25 fewer subcommittees, 3 fewer standing committees. This will
save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I am advised that we have eliminated 80 positions on one committee
alone. I am not uncaring nor insensitive about this result, but these
positions should never have been created in the first place. In
applying retroactive psychology, Mr. Speaker, if our Democrat
leadership friends had accepted our previous proposals which would have
saved taxpayers millions of dollars, we Republicans may not be in the
majority today.
But in this town, pride of authorship is jealously guarded, and many
people are reluctant to permit any good change unless they can claim
the credit therefor.
Today we Republicans again are offering proposals of change which we
have previously attempted to no avail. On this day, Mr. Speaker, we
will, indeed, prevail.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us a message in
November. They want less government, less bureaucracy, more ethics, and
more accountability. They did not vote for arrogant government, and
they did not vote for coronations of any one party or individual.
This rule is a gag rule, no amendments to the Republican rules
package. While the Speaker's first statement was gracious, the first
act of this new Republican majority is not about re-
[[Page H16]] form. It is about congressional retreat. For all of their
talk about reforming the old guard, Republicans today are doing
something that probably no other Congress in history has ever done.
They have proposed a closed rule within a bill brought up under a
closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, let us have openness and accountability.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with the most open and free
debate in the history of congressional history on any opening day, I
yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Glenwood
Springs, CO [Mr. McInnis], a new member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, you know, we are talking about today new management
versus old management, and it is often tough for old management to get
used to the new management ideas. So what you have to do on the old
management side of the aisle, you have to take a look and say, ``How
are we going to debate these rascals over there that want new
management, that want accountability to the American people? How can we
explain the fact we have allowed ghost voting, that we have had poor
management for 40 years, allowed misleading budget information, allowed
mostly closed rules, 70 percent last year? How can we explain to the
American people there is no sunshine law in Congress? How can we
explain these things so those rascals under the new management do not
disclose the problems the American people recognized this last
November?'' The way you do it is you bring in distraction. You do not
talk about the positive elements of this rule, which are manyfold,
elimination of committee staff, no more ghost voting, no more false
budget numbers. You have got to bring in distraction.
So let us talk about gifts. I guess if it was your rule change maybe
we ought to talk about inherited money and see if we have the same kind
of merits.
Do not distract us. Work for improvement. Work for progress. Join the
new management.

announcement by the speaker

The SPEAKER. There are to be no demonstrations in the gallery. Those
in the gallery are here as guests of the House.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule.
I agree with many of the reforms, but there are many, many
opportunities for us to perfect this package. We are passing up an
opportunity to close forever the huge ethical loophole in congressional
activities, the potential for compromise by special interests. We can
do so by banning gifts and by restricting the benefits from lobbyists
and by restricting the benefits one can receive from our writings as we
do now from our speeches.
The American people sent us a message in November. They said they
wanted personal accountability. They certainly do not wish for us to
enrich ourselves as we serve them.
Let us seize this opportunity to clean up this huge ethical loophole
and truly reform congressional activities on this first open day of the
debate of the 104th Congress.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as a
Member of this House on the Democratic side of the aisle who for 20
years never brought a bill to the floor under a closed rule, I am sure
that I speak with credibility that this change is supposed to be about
opening up this debate, and in fact that has not happened.
The test is not whether this is more open than what we did on opening
day. The test is whether or not this rule is open or closed, and this
rule is, in fact, closed.
What is your fear of having an open rule on congressional reform?
That we would overreform the House of Representatives? Hard to
conceived of that. What is your fear of having an open rule when you in
fact have the votes to beat down any amendment that you do not like?
What is your fear, that we would overreform? I do not think so.
Your fear is we would offer what is not in here. The point is this:
It is what you do not put in these rules that disturbs us and disturbs
the American public, and that is breaking the link between lawyers,
lobbyists, money, and legislators, ending the gifts that can be given
to legislators and recognizing when the freshman Members took the oath
here today, they were given a voting card, not a right to receive gifts
to NFL games, to lunches and to dinners.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with debate on the most open,
open reform package that has come to this floor on an opening day, I
yield 30 seconds to a very hard-working member of the Joint Committee
on the Organization of Congress, my friend and classmate, the gentleman
from Cape Girardeau, MO [Mr. Emerson].
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
You know, I have been somewhat amused sitting here listening to our
colleagues on the minority side talking about open rules. I hope
members of the American public know that we are in the process of
reforming the Rules of the House of Representatives here today, that
are going to bring a higher level of reform to this body than it has
experienced in generations.
I am amused by some of the rhetoric here and chagrined really at what
I consider to be the nitpicking. It ill serves you, I think, to be so
petty in your quibbling when we are bringing about major reform to this
body.
Mr. BONIOR. Well, with all due respect to my friend--and he is my
friend--the gentleman from Missouri, breaking the ban and the link
between lobbyists and lawyers and the power in this town in this
institution we do not consider as petty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, if the debate is free, and truly free, then
why cannot we offer significant amendments for reform?
Here is a list of what we can vote for; there is not a list of what
we cannot vote for, because you will not permit us to offer certain
amendments, and I offer this observation.
But today there is no longer an opportunity for Members to fully
participate in offering amendments to reform the House as it should be
reformed. Students of history should note Bob Wise did not say this,
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] said that on opening day of 1991.
Why is it that those who say they want change--and we all want
change--will not permit us to bring to this floor a ban on gifts from
lobbyists, a ban on dinners from lobbyists? Is this something radical?
It has passed the House twice before. Why can we not bring to the floor
the amendment to limit royalties and address another area of concern to
the House? If you want change, then you have to vote for it. If you
want change, then you have to work for it. If you want change, then you
have to let true change flourish, and you have to let us offer these
amendments.
This is not true change, this is not reform that you are doing. You
said you wanted open rules; make them open.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate under the most open
process in congressional history, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Roanoke, VA [Mr. Goodlatte].
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a new day in the people's House, and a new day
calls for new rules, and we are going to deliver those today.
Let me say to our friends on the other side of the aisle who are
claiming our reforms today do not go far enough, for 40 years you ran
this place behind closed doors, keeping every perk, privilege, and
partisan advantage. Now, suddenly, you are trying to tell the American
people you have now become reformers. Well, I realize everyone should
have ambitious New
[[Page H17]] Year's resolutions, but this one is just too hard to
swallow. Today, despite the resistance from the minority party, we are
going to bring more reform to the House in 12 hours than the other
party brought in 40 years of iron-fisted rule.
We are wiping out three full standing committees and over 20
subcommittees; we are slashing bloated committee staffs, imposing term
limits on the Speaker and committee chairmen and eliminating proxy
voting.
Finally, we are going to start making Congress live by the laws that
American businesses and families live by. I think I can speak for many
Americans when I say it is about time.

announcement by the speaker

The SPEAKER. The gallery will not participate in the proceedings of
the House. The gallery may watch as guests of the House.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman who just spoke could not
join us today, as he was one who in fact did vote on the gift ban in
the last Congress when the issue was before us. I am sorry he did not
join us today, when this party in fact has real power but I guess that
is not in the cards.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
Mr. MASCARA. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I too am proud to be a Member of the 104th Congress.
Like many of my new colleagues, I campaigned on the issue of reform. I
want to urge other Members to not get cold feet now.
Our task today is very simple: It is to prove to the American people
that we care more about the public interest than we do about the
special interests; it is to provide that Congress is not for sale.
Mr. Speaker, we are not royalty and, therefore, we do not need gifts.
We do not need free trips or free meals or special privileges. We are
stewards of the public trust. Our constituents elected us to work hard,
to make tough decisions, and to stand up for what is right.
As Members of Congress, we represent the public interest, not private
profits.
We are here to make change, not to protect the old order. Let us
begin by having a open debate about the real needs of our constituents.
No more closed rules, no more status quo.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the most open debate in
congressional history, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from Ocala, FL [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker--it is a wonderful afternoon.
I thank my colleague from California.
My colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle talked about
seizing the opportunity. He agrees with a lot of the reforms that we
are going to present here shortly, but he is complaining about the
parliamentary procedure. So I say to him why did he not, he and his
party, bring all of these forward during the last 40 years? Let us take
this opportunity to look at one of these, the Congressional
Accountability Act, that we are going to pass here on opening day.
What we are saying is that it will not be business as usual around
here, and we intend to make Congress operate in a more fair and open
manner.
Thomas Jefferson said, ``When a man assumes public trust, he should
consider himself as public property.'' By enacting this new set of
rules for the House, we are stating unequivocally we believe in
practicing what we preach.
We must continue providing the bold and decisive leadership that
brought us to this moment here in history.
I urge my colleague from Florida who talked about seizing the
opportunity: Let us move forward.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
just to answer my friend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. He
raised the issue why did we not do this before? In fact, we did the
very reform that the gentleman from Florida spoke about, and that was
congressional accountability.
We authored the legislation, we passed it in this body. It was killed
by the Republicans in the other body. We cane back, incorporated it in
a rule which was governable for the rest of the session.
So, to suggest to this Chamber and to the folks who are listening
that we did not do that is just not the case.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker and Members, I do not think this is a debate
about whether this is the most open of open rules or closed rules in
the history of this Congress, because it is a completely closed rule.
If I had in my hand today an amendment to try to preserve for us the
right to ban the gifts from lobbyists, I would not be able to do that
right now. So let me quote to you some words that I think are most
eloquently stated, back in May 25, 1993, ``With closed rules, voices
all across America are silenced. Republicans want the people to have
choices, and that can only be done by having open rules.'' Those very
eloquent words were uttered by our new Speaker, Mr. Newt Gingrich.
I would urge all of my colleagues in this House to recognize the
words uttered by our new Speaker, that we should have open rules. This
is a closed rule, it is not a good way to start this first year of this
new Congress.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with the most open debate in
congressional history on opening day, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
chairman emeritus of the Committee on Rules, my friend the gentleman
from Kingsport, TN [Mr. Quillen].
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I have been a member of the House for 32 years and a member of
the Rules Committee for 30 of those years, always in the minority until
now. I have probably spoken out on the House floor against closed rules
more times than any other Member of this body.
But even as a member of the minority, I have always believed that
there were certain issues such as this that should be decided under a
restricted or closed rule. To the best of my recollection, the
resolutions establishing the rules of the House have been considered
under a completely closed rule--with a straight up or down vote. This
rule will allow Members the opportunity to vote on nine separate
portions of the rules package. This is certainly a much more open
process than any that I have seen in my 32 years.
I think the minority should appreciate that the Republican majority
chose to open up consideration of this rules package instead of
following the traditional closed process that the Democrats embraced
and promoted when they controlled the House.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining.

{time} 1540

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Omaha, NE [Mr. Christensen], a new Member who has joined us.
(Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Republican
majority, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Democrat
Party to make sure that these reforms come to place, but we have to
remember that the American people sent us to do change. They sent us
here to send a message and to make sure that the opening day activities
included in the Contract With America were enacted, and that is making
Congress live under the same laws that the rest of the American people
have to live under. That is cutting one out of every three
congressional staffers, and that is looking at an audit and getting
that started.
What I ask is: ``Let's get to the business the American people sent
us here to do, and that's the Contract With America.''
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a new member of the Committee on Rules.
[[Page H18]] Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I admit that there are
great parliamentary debaters on the other side of the aisle.
Accordingly, I submit that they must do much better than this, to
divert the attention of the American people from what we are doing
today. What we are doing today is requiring all laws that apply to the
rest of the country to apply to Congress. We are cutting the number of
committee staff by a third. We are limiting the terms of committee
chairs and subcommittee chairmanships to 6 years. We are banning the
scandalous practice, scandalous practice, called proxy voting where
Members did not have to go to a committee, and then the chairman, even
if they did not have anybody there, did not have any of the Democrats
there, they would ultimately win because he had the proxies of all the
Members here, truly scandalous, profoundly undemocratic, conduct. That
is what we are banning today. That is what we are doing in these rules.
And what the Democrats now are saying is, ``Ah.'' They are using the
parliamentary tactic of there is the Christmas gift for all children in
the world is missing from this rules package. It is not going to work.
That is not going to divert the attention of the American people from
what we are doing today, and they are going to know what we are doing,
they deserve what we are doing, and we are going to do it today.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt].
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is recognized
for 4\1/4\ minutes.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge every Member of the House
to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the motion to
commit.
The Republican leadership would have us believe that they can pass
eight or nine bills in a flurry of legislative accomplishment and
debate.
In fact, there can be no debate; there can be no discussion; there
can be no effort to amend, or strengthen, or truly consider any of
their proposals.
This is what we call a closed rule. That means that unless you
support every dot and comma in the Republican agenda, it is a closed
discussion. And as far as serious public policy is concerned, it is a
closed door.
That is a tragedy, because the American people deserve more than
rubber-stamp Republicanism.
That is why we must reject this rule, and open the crucial issue of
congressional reform to discussion and improvement.
The fact is, Democrats do not want to defeat this rules package. We
want real reform. That is why many of the proposals being made today--
such as making Congress abide by the laws it writes--have already been
passed by the House. And that is why Democrats fought for even tougher
reforms, such as a bill to curb the influence of lobbyists, which the
Republicans defeated.
The Republican reforms are all well and good--but they simply do not
go far enough. They are a handful of procedural and administrative
changes here in the House. Many of them are positive.
Many of them deserve wide, bipartisan support--and they will have it.

But they do not touch the real problem: the rampant hand of special
interests here on Capitol Hill.
If the Republicans were serious about attacking special interests,
why would they fight the Democratic proposal to ban gifts from
lobbyists?
Do we want to go along and get along, by rubber-stamping this closed
rule? Or do we want to rein in the special interests by defeating the
rule, and having a real debate about reform?
I urge the latter course. But at the same time, we must all recognize
a broader point.
All of this Republican talk of reform--as necessary as it may be, and
as productive as it may be--is ultimately a distraction from the real
job at hand.
Improving the lives of the hard-working, middle-class families who
have seen their incomes erode, and their standard of living slide, for
15 painful years.
No one should pretend that these narrow procedural changes will do
anything to raise incomes, to restore economic security, to revive hope
and faith in America's future.
And for that matter, no one should pretend that the Contract With
America, with its huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and inevitable
explosion of the Federal deficit--will improve people's lives, either.
Come back to my district in St. Louis. Meet some of the families
where the husband works during the day, the wife works at night, and
they barely ever see each other. Meet some of the families that have
given up every minute of family time working two, three, even four
jobs--and still cannot make ends meet.
Then ask yourself whether some new procedural change can make a
difference in their lives.
My colleagues, I urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question,
and vote ``yes'' on the motion to commit, so we can have serious
congressional reform. And then let us get down to the real business of
the people.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say with all due respect to my
colleagues that I have never heard such preposterous arguments in my
entire 14 years as a Member of this House, and let me say that this
clearly is the most open debate that we have ever experienced on
opening day in the history of the U.S. Congress. It is exactly what
Speaker Gingrich has called for, and it is exactly what we are
creating.
Now, over the past 2 years I had the privilege, mostly during
calendar year 1993, to work with my friends, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Allard], the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] as Republican
members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. We were
charged with dealing with major reform in this institution. Reform in
this institution is going to help working Americans because we are, by
nearly 25 percent, reducing the number of committees in this place so
we do not have 109 committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over
the Pentagon, 52 subcommittees and full committees with jurisdiction
over programs dealing with children and families, and 92 subcommittees
and committees dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency. We are
creating an institution that is more accountable.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority in years past has prevented
us from having the opportunity to even consider those things. On this
opening day we are doing it. We are doing it under the most open
process in the history of this institution, and I thank my friends for
joining with us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

announcement by the speaker

The SPEAKER. The Chair wishes to enunciate a clear policy with
respect to the conduct of electronic votes.
As Members are aware, clause 5 of rule XV provides that Members shall
have not less than 15 minutes in which to answer an ordinary rollcall
vote or quorum call. The rule obviously establishes 15 minutes as a
minimum. Still, with the cooperation of the Members, a vote can easily
be completed in that time. On occasion, the Chair has announced, and
then strictly enforced, a policy of closing electronic votes as soon as
possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes. Members appreciated
and cooperated with the Chair's enforcement of the policy on that
occasion.
The Chair desires that those examples be made the regular practice of
the House. To that end, the Chair enlists the assistance of all Members
in avoiding the unnecessary loss of time in conducting the business of
the House. The Chair encourages all Members to depart for the Chamber
prompt-
[[Page H19]] ly upon the appropriate bell and light signal. As in
recent Congresses, the cloakrooms should not forward to the Chair
requests to hold a vote by electronic device, but should simply apprise
inquiring Members of the time remaining on the voting clock.
Although no occupant of the chair would prevent a Member who is in
the well of the Chamber before the announcement of the result from
casting his or her vote, each occupant of the chair will have the full
support of the Speaker in striving to close each electronic vote at the
earliest opportunity. Members should not rely on signals relayed from
outside the Chamber to assume that votes will be held open until they
arrive in the Chamber.
{time} 1550

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 199, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 3]

YEAS--232

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lambert-Lincoln
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--3

Bishop
Gingrich
Jackson-Lee

{time} 1605

Mr. STUMP and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
motion to commit offered by mr. bonior

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. --

Mr. Bonior moves to commit the resolution H.Res. to a
select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same to
the House forthwith with only the following amendment:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the resolution (H.Res. )
adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the
One Hundred Fourth Congress, [captioned Committee Print on
H.Res. , bearing the date of January 4, 1995], as modified
by the amendment printed in section 4 of this resolution. The
resolution, as modified, shall be debatable initially for 30
minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution, as modified, to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except as specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution, as
modified, shall be divided among ten parts, to wit: each of
the nine sections of title I; and then title II. Each portion
of the divided question shall be debatable separately for 20
minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees, and shall
be disposed of in the order stated.
Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the tenth portion
of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that
the House commit the resolution, as modified, to a select
committee, with or without instructions. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
commit to final adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 4. At the end of Title I add the following new
section:
Sec. (109). The Rules of the House of Representatives of
the One Hundred Third Congress, including applicable
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted
rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Third
Congress, together with such amendments thereto as may
otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the
One Hundred Fourth Congress, with the following amendment:
ban on gifts from lobbyists

(a) Clause 4 of rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``4. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives shall accept a gift, knowing that such gift
is provided directly or indirectly by a paid lobbyist, a
lobbying firm (a person or entity that has 1 or more
employees who are lobbyists on behalf of a client other than
that person or entity), or an agent of a Foreign principal
(as defined in the foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938).
``(2) The prohibition in subparagraph (1) includes the
following:
``(A) Anything provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent
which the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe
is paid for, charged to, or reimbursed by a client or firm of
such lobbyist or foreign agent.
``(B) Anything provided by a lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or
a foreign agent to an entity that is maintained or controlled
by a Member, officer, or employee.
``(C) A charitable contribution (as defined in section
170(c) of the Internal Revenue
[[Page H20]] Code of 1986) made by a lobbyist, a lobbying
firm, or a foreign agent on the basis of a designation,
recommendation, or other specification of a Member, officer,
or employee (not including a mass mailing or other
solicitation directed to a broad category of persons or
entities).
``(D) A contribution or other payment by a lobbyist, a
lobbying firm, or a foreign agent to a legal expense fund
established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or
employee.
``(E) A charitable contribution (as defined in section
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a
lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent in lieu of an
honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee.
``(F) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a
lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent relating to a
conference, retreat, or similar event, sponsored by or
affiliated with an official congressional organization, for
or on behalf of Members, officers, or employees.
``(3) The following are not gifts subject to the
prohibition in subparagraph (1):
``(A) Anything for which the recipient pays the market
value, or does not use and promptly returns to the donor.
``(B) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully
made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event
sponsored by a political organization described in section
527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(C) Food or refreshments of nominal value offered other
than as part of a meal.
``(D) Benefits resulting from the business, employment, or
other outside activities of the spouse of a Member, officer,
or employee, if such benefits are customarily provided to
others in similar circumstances.
``(E) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued
participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan
maintained by a former employer.
``(F) Informational materials that are sent to the office
of a Member, officer, or employee in the form of books,
articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes,
videotapes, or other forms of communication.
``(4)(A) A gift given by an individual under circumstances
which make it clear that the gift is given for a nonbusiness
purpose and is motivated by a family relationship or close
personal friendship and not by the position of the Member,
officer, or employee shall not be subject to the prohibition
in subparagraph (1).
``(B) A gift shall not be considered to be given for a
nonbusiness purpose if the Member, officer, or employee
has reason to believe the individual giving the gift will
seek--
``(i) to deduct the value of such gift as a business
expense on the individual's Federal income tax return, or
``(ii) direct or indirect reimbursement or any other
compensation for the value of the gift from a client or
employer of such lobbyist or foreign agent.
``(C) In determining if the giving of a gift is motivated
by a family relationship or close personal friendship, at
least the following factors shall be considered:
``(i) The history of the relationship between the
individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift,
including whether or not gifts have previously been exchanged
by such individuals.
``(ii) Whether the Member, officer, or employee has reason
to believe the gift was purchased by the individual who gave
the item.
``(iii) Whether the Member, officer, or employee has reason
to believe the individual who gave the gift also at the same
time gave the same or similar gifts to other Members,
officers, or employees.
``(b) In addition to the restriction on receiving gifts
from paid lobbyists, lobbying firms, and agents of foreign
principals provided by paragraph (a) and except as provided
in this Rule, no Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives shall knowingly accept a gift from any other
person.
``(c)(1) For the purpose of this clause, the term `gift'
means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment,
hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary
value. The term includes gifts of services, training,
transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind,
by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement
after the expense has been incurred.
``(2) A gift to the spouse or dependent of a Member,
officer, or employee (or a gift to any other individual based
on that individual's relationship with the Member, officer,
or employee) shall be considered a gift to the Member,
officer, or employee if it is given with the knowledge and
acquiescence of the Member, officer, or employee and the
Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe the gift
was given because of the official position of the Member,
officer, or employee.
``(d) The restrictions in paragraph (b) shall not apply to
the following:
``(1) Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee
pays the market value, or does not use and promptly returns
to the donor.
``(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully
made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event
sponsored by a political organization described in section
527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(3) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of a
personal or family relationship unless the Member, officer,
or employee has reason to believe that, under the
circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official
position of the Member, officer, or employee and not because
of the personal or family relationship. The Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct shall provide guidance on the
applicability of this clause and examples of circumstances
under which a gift may be accepted under this exception.
``(4) A contribution or other payment to a legal expense
fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or
employee, that is otherwise lawfully made, if the person
making the contribution or payment is identified for the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
``(5) Any food or refreshments which the recipient
reasonably believes to have a value of less than $20.
``(6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of
the Senate or the House of Representatives.
``(7) Food, refreshments, lodging, and other benefits--
``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment
activities (or other outside activities that are not
connected to the duties of the Member, officer, or employee
as an officeholder) of the Member, officer, or employee, or
the spouse of the Member, officer, or employee, if such
benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the
official position of the Member, officer, or employee and are
customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in
connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
``(C) provided by a political organization described in
section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in
connection with a fundraising or campaign event sponsored by
such an organization.
``(8) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued
participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan
maintained by a former employer.
``(9) Informational materials that are sent to the office
of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books,
articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes,
videotapes, or other forms of communication.
``(10) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in
contests or events open to the public, including random
drawings.
``(11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food,
refreshments, and entertainment) and other bona fide,
nonmonetary awards presented in recognition of public service
(and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment
provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).
``(12) Donations of products from the State that the Member
represents that are intended primarily for promotional
purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of
minimal value to any individual recipient.
``(13) Food, refreshments, and entertainment provided to a
Member or an employee of a Member in the Member's home State,
subject to reasonable limitations, to be established by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
``(14) An item of little intrinsic value such as a greeting
card, baseball cap, or a T shirt.
``(15) Training (including food and refreshments furnished
to all attendees as an integral part of the training)
provided to a Member, officer, or employee, if such training
is in the interest of the House of Representatives.
``(16) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at
death.
``(17) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
``(18) Anything which is paid for by the Federal
Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the
Government under a Government contract.
``(19) A gift of personal hospitality of an individual, as
defined in section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act.
``(20) Free attendance at a widely attended event permitted
pursuant to paragraph (e).
``(21) Opportunities and benefits which are--
``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of
all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis
of geographic consideration;
``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which
membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an
employees' association or congressional credit union, in
which membership is related to congressional employment and
similar opportunities are available to large segments of the
public through organizations of similar size;
``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in
a manner that specifically discriminates among Government
employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of
responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher
rank or rate of pay;
``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial
institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for
participation in organization activities offered to all
Government employees by professional organizations if the
only restrictions on membership relate to professional
qualifications.
[[Page H21]] ``(22) A plaque, trophy, or other memento of
modest value.
``(23) Anything for which, in exceptional circumstances, a
waiver is granted by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.
``(e)(1) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a Member,
officer, or employee may accept an offer of free attendance
at a widely attended convention, conference, symposium,
forum, panel discussion, dinner, viewing, reception, or
similar event, provided by the sponsor of the event, if--
``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the
event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting
information related to Congress or matters before Congress,
or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the
Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the
performance of the official duties or representative function
of the Member, officer, or employee.
``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event
described in subparagraph (1) may accept a sponsor's
unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for an
accompanying individual if others in attendance will
generally be similarly accompanied or if such attendance is
appropriate to assist in the representation of the House of
Representatives.
``(3) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a Member,
officer, or employee, or the spouse or dependent thereof, may
accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at a
charity event, except that reimbursement for transportation
and lodging may not be accepted in connection with the event.
``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free
attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference
or other fee, the provision of local transportation, or the
provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and
instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an
integral part of the event. The term does not include
entertainment collateral to the event, or food or
refreshments taken other than in a group setting with all or
substantially all other attendees.
``(f) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the
value of which exceeds $250 on the basis of the personal
relationship exception in paragraph (d)(3) or the close
personal friendship exception in section 106(d) of the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 unless the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct issues a written deterministion
that one of such exceptions applies.
``(g)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is
authorized to adjust the dollar amount referred to in
paragraph (d)(5) on a periodic basis, to the extent necessary
to adjust for inflation.
``(2) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall
provide guidance setting forth reasonable steps that may be
taken by Members, officers, and employees, with a minimum of
paperwork and time, to prevent the acceptance of prohibited
gifts from lobbyists.
``(3) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item
because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of
the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity or
destroyed.
``(h)(1)(A) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a
reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a Member,
officer, or employee for necessary transportation, lodging
and related expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking
engagement, factfinding trip or similar event in connection
with the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an
officeholder shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the
House of Representatives and not a gift prohibited by this
paragraph, if the Member, officer, or employee--
``(i) in the case of an employee, receives advance
authorization, from the Member or officer under whose direct
supervision the employee works, to accept reimbursement, and
``(ii) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be
reimbursed and the authorization to the Clerk of the House of
Representatives within 30 days after the travel is completed.
``(B) For purposes of clause (A), events, the activities of
which are substantially recreational in nature, shall not be
considered to be in connection with the duties of a Member,
officer, or employee as an officeholder.
``(2) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement
shall be signed by the Member or officer under whose direct
supervision the employee works and shall include--
``(A) the name of the employee;
``(B) the name of the person who will make the
reimbursement;
``(C) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
``(D) a determination that the travel is in connection with
the duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not
create the appearance that the employee is using public
office for private gain.
``(3) Each disclosure made under subparagraph (1)(A) of
expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by
the Member or officer (in the case of travel by that Member
or officer) or by the Member or officer under whose direct
supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an
employee) and shall include--
``(A) a good faith estimate of total transportation
expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(B) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(C) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(D) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
``(E) a determination that all such expenses are necessary
transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in
this paragraph; and
``(F) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or
officer, a determination that the travel was in connection
with the duties of the Member or officer as an officeholder
and would not create the appearance that the Member or
officer is using public office for private gain.
``(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term
`necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
``(A) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for
travel--
``(i) for a period not exceeding 4 days including travel
time within the unanimous consent or 7 days in addition to
travel outside the United States; and
``(ii) within 24 hours before or after participation in an
event in the United States or within 48 hours before or after
participation in an event outside the United States,

unless approved in advance by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct;
``(B) is limited to reasonable expenditures for
transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and
food and refreshments, including reimbursement for necessary
transportation, whether or not such transportation occurs
within the periods described in clause (A);
``(C) does not include expenditures for recreational
activities or entertainment other than that provided to all
attendees as an integral part of the event; and
``(D) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of
either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or
employee, subject to a determination signed by the Member or
officer (or in the case of an employee, the Member or officer
under whose direct supervision the officer or employee works)
that the attendance of the spouse or child is appropriate to
assist in the representation of the House of Representatives.
``(5) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make
available to the public all advance authorizations and
disclosures of reimbursement filed pursuant to subparagraph
(1) as soon as possible after they are received.''.

SEC. . LIMITATION ON ROYALTY INCOME.

(a) Limitation.--Clause 3 of rule XLVII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(g) In calendar year 1995 or thereafter, a Member,
officer, or employee of the House may not--
``(1) receive any copyright royalties for any work--
``(A) unless the royalty is received from an established
publisher pursuant to usual and customary contractual terms;
``(B) unless the total amount of such royalties for that
work does not exceed one-third of that individual's annual
pay as a Member, officer, or employee for the year in which
the contract is entered into; and
``(C) without the prior notification and approval of the
contract for that work by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct; or
``(2) receive any advance payment for any such work.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 3(e)(5) of rule XLVII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read
as follows:
``(5) copyright royalties.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this resolution
shall apply only to copyright royalties received by any
Member, officer, or employee of the House after adoption of
this resolution pursuant to any contract entered into while
that individual is such a Member, officer, or employee.
{time} 1610

Mr. SPRATT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, the point I want to make is that this is a question on the
gift ban and on the book royalty at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just
say to the gentleman, we have just been handed a 20-page document here.
This is the motion to recommit?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this is the motion to commit.
Mr. SOLOMON. To commit?
Mr. BONIOR. If the gentleman will yield further, yes. This is what we
were talking about for the last hour, the ban on gifts from lobbyists
and book royalties.
[[Page H22]] Mr. SOLOMON. I do not know how that, with no debate, Mr.
Speaker, we are going to have time to even know the details of this.
I would urge a no vote.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield,
the gentleman makes a good point about debate. Would the gentleman
agree to unanimous consent for about 20 minutes to debate this? Then we
can discuss it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would move regular order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent
request. What happened to my unanimous-consent request?
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object----
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there is a unanimous-consent request to
dispense with the reading of the 20-page motion.
The SPEAKER. That is the pending request. There can only be one
request pending at a time.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is
apparent to me that, as one who has been here for several years and has
seen what has gone on in past first days of the Congress, I attempted
and my staff attempted, beginning back in December, to get a copy of
the proposed new House rules for this Congress. We have not been able
to.
Mr. THOMAS of California. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. VOLKMER. I am reserving the right to object.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman may not reserve the right to object if
regular order is requested.
Is there objection to the request to dispense with the reading?
Does the gentleman still tender his request?
Mr. SPRATT. What I seek, Mr. Speaker, is that we dispense with the
reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. The Member was not on his feet, and it was not timely.
The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. The Members are reminded that this is a 15-minute vote,
with a maximum of 2 additional minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196,
nays 235, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 4]

YEAS--196

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lambert-Lincoln
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--235

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--3

Chrysler
Gingrich
Norwood
{time} 1626

So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251,
nays 181, not voting 2, as follows:

[Roll No. 5]

YEAS--251

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
[[Page H23]] Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--181

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lambert-Lincoln
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--2

Gingrich
Gonzalez

{time} 1643

Messrs. ORTIZ, FATTAH, and SKELTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________