[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 218, 
         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 384

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth 
     the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. The first 
     reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against the concurrent resolution and 
     against its consideration are waived. Initial general debate 
     shall be confined to the congressional budget and shall not 
     exceed two hours (including one hour on the subject of 
     economic goals and policies) equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Budget. After initial general debate, an additional 
     period of general debate shall be confined to the subject of 
     the amendment numbered 4 in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by Representative Kasich 
     of Ohio and an opponent. After general debate on the subject 
     of the amendment numbered 4, an additional period of general 
     debate shall be confined to the subject of the amendment 
     numbered 3 of the report of the Committee on Rules and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Mfume of Maryland and an opponent. After 
     general debate on the subject of the amendment numbered 3, 
     the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. 
     No amendment shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order 
     against the amendments printed in the report are waived. If 
     more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
     adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as 
     finally adopted and reported to the House. After the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment, and a final period of general debate, which shall 
     not exceed ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
     resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been 
     finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto 
     to final adoption without intervening motion except 
     amendments offered by the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The 
     concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question of its adoption.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clyburn). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 384 provides for the 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 218, setting forth the 
congressional budget for fiscal year 1995. The rule provides for 2 
hours of general debate, including a period of 1 hour on the subject of 
economic goals and policies, to be equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  The rule further provides for additional periods of general debate of 
1 hour each on the Kasich substitute and Mfume substitute after 
conclusion of the initial period of general debate. Debate time is 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The rule waives all points of order against the concurrent resolution 
and against its consideration and makes in order only the five 
amendments in the nature of substitutes which are printed in the report 
accompanying the resolution. The rule provides that the five 
substitutes shall be considered under a king-of-the-hill procedure. 
Under king-of-the-hill, if more than one amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is adopted, only the last such amendment adopted shall be 
considered as finally adopted and reported back to the House.
  The substitutes will be considered in the following order and will be 
debatable for 1 hour each: first, the substitute to be offered by 
Representative Frank; second, the substitute to be offered by 
Representative Solomon; third, the substitute by Representative Mfume; 
fourth, the substitute to be offered by Representative Kasich and; 
fifth, the concurrent resolution as reported by the Budget Committee. 
The rule waives all points of order against the substitutes and the 
substitutes are not amendable and shall be considered as read.
  After the disposition of the last substitute, the rule further 
provides for a period of 10 minutes of concluding debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Finally, the rule also makes in order mathematical consistency 
amendments as needed and as provided in section 305(a)(5) of the Budget 
Act and provides that the concurrent resolution is not divisible.
  Mr. Speaker, this year's budget resolution incorporates President 
Clinton's budget request for fiscal year 1995, and implements the 
spending cuts mandated by last year's deficit reduction package. Under 
that package, the deficit is projected to drop from $225 billion in 
fiscal year 1993 to $175 billion by fiscal year 1995--or $80 billion in 
a 2-year period. The resolution calls for no new taxes and does not 
require reconciliation.
  The budget resolution sets total discretionary spending for fiscal 
year 1995 within the caps established by last year's deficit reduction 
package. Specifically, the resolution sets discretionary spending at 
$511.2 billion in budget authority, $6.8 billion less than the cap, and 
$541.1 billion in outlays, also within the cap.
  For domestic discretionary spending, the resolution sets a fiscal 
year 1995 level of $226.6 billion in budget authority and $249.2 
billion in outlays. These levels generally assume both the investments 
and the extensive spending cuts proposed by the President.
  The President requested increases of $14.1 billion in budget 
authority for a number of investment programs, such as Head Start, 
compensatory education, crime control, WIC, health research, job 
training, and transportation. The budget resolution includes $13.5 
billion for these programs. The budget resolution also adopts the 
President's reordering of spending priorities, which call for the 
termination of over 100 domestic discretionary programs and spending 
reductions in more than 300 others.
  For defense, the budget resolution calls for $263.8 billion in budget 
authority and $270.9 billion in outlays next year. These figures are 
consistent with the President's request and reflect savings resulting 
from the administration's proposed procurement reform and reduced rent 
payments from Federal agencies.
  The budget resolution also contains a number of modifications to the 
President's budget and rejects proposed cuts in the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, mass transit operating funds, veteran's 
medical research as well as the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  Finally, the budget resolution does not prejudge the debate on health 
care reform and does not include any specific figures for health care 
reform. Rather it assumes budget neutrality of any such legislation 
over a 5-year period.
  Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of economic stagnation, the economy is 
once again starting to pick up. Industrial productivity is on the rise 
as well as business investment. The rate of unemployment is down as is 
the deficit and inflation. The rate of new housing starts are on the 
rise while mortgage rates remain low. Although we are still not out of 
the woods, this budget will keep us on the course to recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 384 is a fair rule that will expedite 
consideration of this important resolution. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] for yielding, and I wish to tell him that he 
will be missed sincerely by all of us. We wish him well in the years 
ahead.
  Members may not realize that, under the Budget Act, budget 
resolutions are privileged and may be brought directly to the floor 
without passing through the Rules Committee. Under the normal rules of 
this House, any Member is supposed to have the opportunity to amend the 
budget resolution on the floor.
  In this case today, though, the normal procedures were set aside and 
the Rules Committee was asked to structure debate on the budget 
resolution--placing limits on the involvement of Members in outlining 
our budget priorities for the next 5 years. Managing the public's 
budget and bringing down our staggering national debt is arguably one 
of the most important parts of every Member's job. Yet Members will 
only have a limited set of preselected options from which to choose as 
we proceed today. That is not the way it is supposed to work.
  The majority seemed to have an especially strong interest in 
expediting this important step in our budget process today getting to 
the budget resolution. One might even call it rushing it through even 
though we are already a full 2\1/2\ weeks ahead of schedule. In its 
haste to move the budget resolution, the majority leadership 
disregarded another crucial standing procedure in this House--ignoring 
the normal requirement that budget resolutions be available to Members 
for 5 legislative days prior to voting.
  Why is this important? I am holding the committee's budget 
resolution--it is a sizable document that contains crucial information 
about how we intend to parcel out the Nation's resources over the next 
5 years. It is heavy reading--and it takes time to digest.
  Members should have a chance to read what they are being asked to 
vote on before they are asked to vote. But this year, the final report 
on the budget resolution was not widely available to Members until 
Wednesday, yesterday. Since we are so far ahead of schedule, I am 
troubled that Members are not afforded time for reflection and study. 
It does not make much sense and it did not have to be this way.

  Today's rule reflects the wishes of our distinguished chairman [Mr. 
Moakley] who asked that changes to the budget resolution come in the 
form of complete substitutes. While I understand the reasoning behind 
this request and the interest in having orderly debate, significant 
proposals to improve our budget outline will not be heard today because 
of that limitation.
  For instance, under this process I was not encouraged to proceed with 
an amendment making an additional 76 specific spending cuts for a 5-
year savings of $285 billion, the socalled Spirit of '76 proposal.
  Still, I could accept this limitation--had it been fairly and 
consistently applied to all substitutes presented. But this was not the 
case--in fact there were two very thoughtful, credible, and responsible 
substitutes that were inexplicably shutout of the process.
  One, a proposal by Mr. Burton of Indiana that I strongly support, is 
known as the 2-percent solution, and seeks to freeze our budget at this 
year's levels plus 2 percent. The gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Bentley] offered a similar amendment and was also denied.
  A second substitute not made in order, offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] listed an additional $550 billion in budget cut 
savings over the next 5 years. Even though I agree with the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] that we 
have made some progress in reducing the deficit, I am convinced much 
more can and must be done to cut Federal spending on wasteful, 
redundant, and low-priority programs.
  That is what Mr. Schaefer was attempting to do--and that is what my 
own Spirit of '76 intends to do.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule does make in order 4 complete substitutes--
including a comprehensive Republican budget offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the balanced budget approach I am proud to 
have worked on with my friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon]. In addition, we will consider proposals by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] 
all of which we will hear about in detail in the hours ahead. For that, 
we are grateful.
  I am disappointed, though, that the majority felt the need to add yet 
another shackle to this process--the arcane procedure known as king-of-
the-hill, whereby four or five proposals are considered in a row and 
the last one to pass wins. Many of us would prefer to let the chips 
fall where they may--and let the House truly work its will--by voting 
on each and accepting the one with the highest vote total.
  King-of-the-hill tends to reduce Members' accountability by giving 
them free votes, while allowing the majority a last chance to undo 
anything that is done and still get their budget passed.
  I think I can predict exactly what budget is going to pass, and I can 
predict safely that after 9 hours of debate here, which is very 
orderly, exactly where we are going to come out, and it is going to be 
called the Budget Deficit Reduction Act budget for this year.
  I have got to point something out at this time, as I did yesterday at 
the Committee on Rules meeting. On the budget deficit for this year 
much crowing is going on because it is only going to be a $175.3 
billion deficit this year. Now we have made it not as bad as it could 
have been, but a $175.3 billion deficit this year alone is nothing to 
brag about. But the problem is that is not the true number. The true 
number is a much bigger deficit than that because we have not included 
the Social Security savings. We have simply said that those $65 or so 
billion dollars we are crediting against the deficit, those moneys are 
already predestined to go to the people who have paid into the Social 
Security System. They are not available to reduce the deficit, and we 
all know it, so that gets the deficit up to about $250, $240, $250 
billion, and then, then the real problem. We have been told we are 
going to have health care reform this year.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has stood in this very body, in this 
Chamber, and said that he will veto anything except certain proposals. 
CBO has given us a cost estimate on the one proposal so far that we 
know he is not going to veto, the Clinton plan. It is $130 billion. Mr. 
Speaker, we have two long days of thoughtful discussion ahead of us. 
There are strong feelings on all sides--and legitimate and deep-seated 
philosophical differences exist that do not necessarily run along 
partisan lines. While I am glad that we will have an opportunity to 
hear five very different visions of where our budget priorities should 
lie--I wish we could have opened the process up completely. For that 
reason, I oppose this rule.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material at the end of my 
remarks:

  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed 
 Rule on House Concurrent Resolution 218, Budget Resolution for Fiscal 
                            Years 1995-1999

       1. Burton (IN)--Substitute. Making each aggregate and 
     functional total equal to fiscal year 1994 level plus 2 
     percent. Intended to reduce federal spending by $795.6 
     billion over 5 years. Directs 16 committees to report 
     reconciliation.
       Vote (defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Slaughter. Not voting: 
     Moakley, Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
       2. Schaefer (CO)--Substitute. Provides $550 billion in 
     spending cuts over the next 5 years.
       Vote (defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Slaughter. Not voting: 
     Moakley, Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
       3. Talent (MO)--Amendment to increase defense (function 
     050) by over $19 billion over 5 years, with offsetting cuts 
     in general government (function 800).
       Vote (defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Slaughter. 
     Not voting: Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
       4. Bentley (MD)--Amendment that directs each aggregate and 
     functional total be changed to the fiscal year 1994 level 
     plus 2 percent. Intended to reduce Federal spending below 
     baseline spending levels by $795.6 billion over 5 years. Also 
     directs the Committee of the Whole to report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill reducing expenditures by $34.019 billion.
       Vote (defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Slaughter. 
     Not voting: Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
       5. Eliminate King-of-the-Hill procedure and provide 
     substitute adopted with most favorable votes reported back to 
     the House.
       Vote (defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Slaughter. 
     Not voting: Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
       6. Adoption of Rule--
       Vote (adopted 6-4): Yeas--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Hall, Slaughter. Nays--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Not voting: Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           58      12         21       46         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Mar. 10, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  .................................
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, but I will oppose the 
budget. I mean no offense to the Democrats. I will also oppose the 
Republican version of the budget. I think both the Democratic and 
Republican versions are misguided, and I want to disassociate myself 
from both of them, for the following reasons:
  There are some good things in the Democratic budget, there are some 
good things in the Republican budget, but the truth is that we keep and 
continue on with the same economic program in America and we are 
rearranging the deck chairs with all these tax manipulations.
  The truth is that we have got to change the way we tax and raise 
revenue in our country. Everybody is talking about spending, and on one 
is focusing on revenue.
  Here is the way America works, Democrats and Republicans both: No. 1, 
if you work hard, very hard, you are penalized and you are zapped for 
it. It is time to at least look at reducing our income taxes with a 
flat tax on income and coupling them with a tax on spending.
  There is a whole second economy called The Street that we are 
subsidizing with prisons that our working people could benefit from if 
we would at least look at some alternatives. But the truth is that no 
one is talking about that. The reason is there is really no difference 
between Democrats and Republicans.
  I listen to the abortion rap, I listen to the gun rap and the death 
penalty business, but when it comes to taxes and trade and the way we 
do business, there is not one bit of difference here, and no one is 
reading the frustration of the American people. No one is even 
analyzing that frustration, and it is there. The American people are 
simply taxed off.
  Here is where we go: We are now going forward against the rich again. 
We are going to hit the rich.
  We are moving into class wars in this country. We have already chased 
the rich people's factories and their jobs out of the country. I say, 
``Now, watch, Congress, that you don't chase their money and their 
savings out of this country.''
  We should be incentivizing the Tax Code so the rich people would be 
putting their money into America in the form of investments and hiring 
American workers. We are not doing that.
  For all of those who are looking at these rosy pictures, I would 
point out that individual personal income dropped three-tenths of 1 
percent in the last quarter while individual spending and borrowing 
raised one-half of 1 percent. That is not wages, I say to the Congress. 
It is debt, individual debt, business debt, national debt, and the 
truth is that we are doing nothing. Democrats and Republicans both are 
doing absolutely nothing. We are not even studying an alternative to 
the way we tax in our own country.
  I want to close out and basically ask this: Why would you invest in 
America with the IRS and Social Security down your throats, with 
Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Compensation, EPA, OSHA, 
banking regulations, and security regulations?
  I say, ``Folks, what are we doing?'' What is the cost of wages in our 
country? Why have we driven our people out? It is not because they are 
not patriots. Congress continues to develop budgets here that rearrange 
those deck chairs by adding another wrinkle to another 5-year bill.
  I am trying to figure this out: Is this the year of the Clinton 5-
year bill, or is this the first of another 5-year deal Congress is 
bringing up?
  Where is Gramm-Rudman that was supposed to balance the budget in 
1991? It started at $200 billion in 1986. It was $320 billion in 1991. 
It is not working, I say to the Congress. The American people know it 
is not working, and it is Democrats and Republicans who are going to 
argue about some fine print in their different versions, but there is 
not a damn bit of difference in either budget from either party.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to disassociate myself from it. I appreciate the 
President's action in taking some of the steps he has taken. I would 
hope that he would not have fallen into the same team of Washington, 
DC, advisers that have grabbed the last five Presidents. To tell you 
the truth, I do not know what is in the White House anymore. Democrat 
or Republican, it makes no difference.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me. I rise today in opposition to this rule.
  President Clinton may be content with a deficit of only $170 billion 
next year, but taxpayers are not. To put this Government on the path 
toward a balanced budget, I offered a substitute amendment to the 
budget resolution that orders another round of deficit reduction under 
a reconciliation process. That substitute was not made in order, and I 
will oppose this restrictive rule.
  The Schaefer substitute ordered House committees must find $560 
billion in savings over the next 5 years--without tax increases.
  Best of all, the reconciliation bill is already written, in the form 
of H.R. 3958, The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994. This bipartisan 
package of 150 spending cuts, which I introduced last week, specifies 
line-by-line, program-by-program, how to achieve the savings required 
by the Schaefer budget substitute.
  Although my substitute was turned down, I urge my colleagues to take 
a hard look at my bill, on which the substitute was based. The Fiscal 
Responsibility Act is the only bill before Congress that provides the 
details necessary to finally stem the flood of red ink from the U.S. 
Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, I do support the Solomon approach which is near the 
Penny-Schaefer substitute, and I think it is probably the only way to 
go at this point in time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members for all the hard work they have done 
on this legislation.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], the 
distinguished deputy majority whip.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, a year ago our friends on the other side were predicting 
economic disaster if we passed the budget resolution. Alan Greenspan, 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, recently commented that we 
are seeing the best economic outlook we have seen in decades.
  The fact is that because of the budget resolution we passed last 
year, the economy is growing all the way from Wall Street to main 
street.
  This budget is a tough budget. It cuts the deficit to $171 billion, 
the lowest figure we have seen in 5 years.

                              {time}  1050

  It continues the successful spending cuts of the Committee on the 
Budget last year, cutting more than the President did, initiates over 
100 Federal programs being killed and 200 others drastically reduced.
  Discretionary spending in 1995 is below last year's dollar level, and 
total Federal spending is at its lowest level in 15 years. At the same 
time, we are investing in people; $13.6 billion of the President's $14 
billion request for new initiatives are in education, training, 
research and development, infrastructure, health, and human services.
  The reason that we are not having such a heated debate, watched by 
everybody in the world, is because the economy is in good shape, and 
this budget resolution is another step in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a budget resolution that reduces the deficit at 
a time when the economy is growing, 2 million jobs created in 1993, 70 
percent more private sector jobs in 1 year than were created in the 
previous 4 years. Unemployment is way down. The deficit is down. 
Interest rates are at a 25-year low, and as a result, 5 million 
Americans have been able to refinance their home.
  Mr. Speaker, let us pass this budget to continue this economic growth 
in this country.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, a long time ago the Congress passed a statute to bind 
itself on a fiscal year to complete its appropriations by September 30 
of every year. That is the law. Congress passed the law against itself 
to bind itself. Almost every year since I have been here, at least 9 
years out of the 12 that I have been here, we have failed to meet that 
deadline. So what does the Congress resort to to try to continue its 
business? It forms a continuing resolution, a temporary set of 
appropriations, until the time that the final appropriations can be 
passed.
  Well, that has caused a lot of mischief. No. 1, it permits the people 
who control the budget, the appropriators, to favor certain projects 
and to slip in certain appropriations that we never had contemplated in 
the original consideration of the bills. Mischief.
  No. 2, it has permitted 9 times in the last 12, it has allowed, the 
Federal Government to come to a halt. That is, there was an absence of 
Government in our country for given periods of time during the after 
September 30 period until a new budget was allowed.
  Worst of all, this occurred one time when our Armed Forces were 
amassing in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield in 1990. Here we were, 
our young fellow Americans were all poised for the big battle that was 
to come in Desert Storm, all ready with their weapons, and the 
Government of the United States shut down because the Congress did not 
pass the appropriations to make the Government run.
  Now, that is outlandish, outrageous, and an abdication of the duty of 
the Congress to the Armed Forces and to the entire country.
  What have we done since then? I have introduced time and time again a 
bill that would call for instant replay. That is to say that on October 
1, if appropriations bills have not been passed by the deadline, 
midnight of September 30, then on October 1, it would be an instant 
replay, an instant adoption, automatic adoption, of last year's 
appropriations.
  This would guarantee a continuum of appropriations until the Congress 
is ready to act on the full appropriations. And what is even better, it 
will prevent forever the Government from shutting down, which is an 
outrage and an insult to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a scheme on my part which has no support. 
The GAO, in its report on this very same cycle of failure to meet the 
September 30 deadline, issued the report which came to every Member, 
and, lo and behold, to the great satisfaction of my ego, they mentioned 
in a footnote that my bill was introduced that could go a long way in 
curing this malady of our budget process.
  Now again, this year I presented it to the Committee on Rules, a 
sense of the Congress to do exactly that same thing, and I was smacked 
in the face again. But I am going to get up from my floor position and 
fight again whenever I can.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it was the poet Shelly that said that children 
need to believe in belief. And I think what that means is that our 
children in America need to be able to believe in their dreams. They 
need to be able to believe in childhood. They need to be able to 
believe in that elf that whispers in their ear and talks about Santa 
Claus, or the beauty of being what ever you want to be when you grow 
up.
  It is too often times in the America of today that we see here in 
Washington, DC, where young people are shooting each other in the 
streets, and now in the schools, that our children do not have this 
opportunity to dream. They do not have the opportunity to believe in 
belief, and they never are children.
  I went before the Committee on Rules yesterday to propose what I 
thought was a reasonable amendment to the budget, because the budget is 
the appropriate place to do this. And my amendment would have done two 
things: It would have cut the intelligence budget by 5 percent over 5 
years, and eliminated the D5 Trident missile program, accumulating to 
about $11.8 billion in cuts, and taken that $11.8 billion and put it 
into a Children's Initiative for America, another CIA.
  Mr. Speaker, I believed putting this money in initiatives for 
children, like the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] Program, the 
immunization program for children, the Head Start Program for children, 
would begin to give so many of these children in America this 
opportunity to live the kind of life and to fulfill the kind of dreams 
that we think the American dream is about. That is the opportunity to 
do better than our parents did.
  Mr. Speaker, that amendment was not agreed to, and I am disappointed. 
I also thought there was precedent for that amendment to be agreed to 
by the Committee on Rules
  In 1989 the Committee on Rules allowed an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Panetta, now our OMB Director, to offset 
money, to put more money toward the veterans services. In 1991 the 
Committee on Rules allowed an amendment by Mr. Ford to offset with cuts 
roughly a $400 million increase in the education account, a function 
500 account. And I am hopeful that we will begin to get more and more 
of a groundswell. Mr. Raspberry in a column in the Washington Post said 
that we need a children's movement, a children's crusade. We need a 
groundswell of Members in Congress to get these kinds of amendments put 
before this distinguished body, so that we can invest in our most 
precious human resources, our children.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed that this amendment was not 
allowed by the Committee on Rules, I do have to say that the gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, working very closely with President Clinton, 
has come up with a very good budget, I think a budget that will 
increase, although I would like to see it increase even more, funding 
in programs such as WIC, Head Start, and children's immunizations. I 
think the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has done yeoman's work on 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has worked very 
closely with the Clinton administration on a host of goals, and done a 
very very good job with a very very arduous task.
  In that light, I intend to support the rule. I intend to work with 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] on the appropriations and 
authorization bills, to try to achieve what my amendment would have 
achieved on the budget resolution. And I look forward to more members 
working through the children's working group that I have established 
here in Congress to try to get more attention paid to these amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Rules and thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and look forward 
to voting for this rule and working on a budget that is in the best 
interest of American and the best interests of our children of America.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  (Mr. TALENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the need to order debate to foreclose 
issues when we are discussing a broad budget like this, issues which 
may be particular to a particular district, which may be particularly 
political or partisan in nature. That is why I understand the need for 
the Committee on Rules to exercise some control over this whole 
process.
  The Committee on Rules ought not to be used, however, to foreclose 
issues which are national in nature, while cannot be discussed 
realistically at any other point, and which are not political or 
partisan. I think that has happened with this rule.
  It is the reason I will oppose it, because we are not going to be 
able to fully debate a very vital issue. That is the question of how 
much this country is going to spend on national defense this year.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to outline what has happened in the last 
few years. Many Members are not aware of it. Many members of the public 
are not aware of it. Defense spending has been reduced in this country 
by 35 percent in real terms since 1986, at the same time as domestic 
spending has gone up by over 30 percent, at the same time as the need 
for greater conventional power has increased and not decreased as a 
result of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  The bipolar nature of the world up through about the late eighties 
suppressed conventional kinds of conflicts. We would not have had a 
Desert Storm 10 years ago. Because there were two major powers standing 
off against each other with nuclear weapons, it was very unlikely that 
those kind of regional conflicts would emerge or at least would emerge 
to that kind of an extent. So we are in more serious danger of 
conventional conflicts than we used to be at the same time as defense 
spending has been decreasing.
  The result of that is the hollowing out of America's defenses, which 
I have reported on to the Congress in a number of special orders.
  My amendment targeted this by taking $20 billion over the next 5 
years in the budget resolution from overhead, from the legislative 
budget, from executive overhead, and putting it into national defense 
and addressing two of the worst areas in which we are hollowing out. 
One of them is pay.
  As we reduce defense forces, we have got to have high-quality people. 
The only way to do that is pay them what we need to pay in order to get 
good-quality people on the forces. We are projecting now 1.6-percent 
pay increases, which is substantially below inflation, below the 
formula that this Congress had set for pay increases in the past.
  My amendment would have raised it to 2.6 percent or restored what we 
had been doing in the past.
  The other crucial area is modernization. As you reduce the number of 
troops you have in the Army, it is essential, there is a consensus on 
this, that each soldier be able to protect himself better and to pack 
more firepower. We cannot afford either in terms of the lives of our 
people or the objectives of the country to be losing one person for 
every person that the enemy may lose in the event of battle. To do 
that, you have to have modernization.
  The Army's budget for modernization was cut 25 percent last year 
alone for the next 5 years. It was cut 25 percent in 1 year. My 
amendment would have restored $10 billion approximately over the next 5 
years which is the minimum amount necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, the only way to consider this defense issue without 
getting tied up in all the other issues and all the partisan politics 
is to have a discrete amendment doing nothing to the committee's budget 
but taking some money from a domestic spending area and putting it into 
defense. If we cannot do it in that context, the House will never have 
a chance to express an opinion on it in the course of debating the 
budget resolution. And this is the only time we can, because as the 
Members are aware, if we do not change the budget caps during the 
budget resolution, budget resolution process, we cannot do anything 
when we debate the actual authorization or appropriation bill later on.
  Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of the Government is to raise 
and fund the national defense and protect the lives of our soldiers and 
the security of our people. I urge the House to defeat the rule so we 
can consider an amendment that would put that issue before the House.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  I rise to commend him for this rule. It is a fair rule. It allows a 
variety of alternatives to be considered and debated by this Congress.
  But more importantly, I would like to say to the gentleman from South 
Carolina how much I and the whole House are going to miss him. The work 
he does on the Committee on Rules is going to be missed. The work he 
does as an individual member representing his district, it is going to 
be missed.
  The work he does as a whip is going to be missed. He is truly one of 
the Members of this Congress that will leave a big hole, and all of us 
deeply appreciate the thoughtfulness which he brings and has brought to 
public service. We look forward to working with him for the balance of 
the year and wish him well in the future.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this will be the 12th year in which I have had a very 
modest role in the deliberations on a budget resolution, and this year 
is no exception. I have not met a budget resolution I like. I do not 
like all or any of the alternatives presented, but the fact of the 
matter is, we must, of course, under our budgetary procedures, have a 
budget resolution.
  I rise today to express my concern primarily over the failure of the 
Committee on Rules to have made in order an amendment, which I 
presented to them, which would have allowed to be considered an 
amendment to the Republican budget resolution alternative, which would 
have restored funding for the Federal Impact Aid to Education Program, 
a program vitally important to my district, but also important to 
perhaps 100 or more other districts throughout America.
  Federal Impact Aid to Education is critically important to the 
financial viability of education systems in numerous school districts 
within my district in Virginia, as it is to many others that have a 
significant Federal impact.
  It is a program where the Federal Government is doing something which 
it is only right and appropriate that they do in absorbing the impact 
of the present Federal activities which detract from the tax base and 
resources of local communities with which to support the educational 
system that provides the educational services to Federal, military, and 
civilian employees.
  I think it is a serious mistake not to have permitted consideration 
of an amendment that has that broad a sweep.
  In the budget resolutions that come before us, I am going to be 
supporting the Republican alternative, not because I like all that is 
in it. There is much in it I do not like. My understanding of a budget 
resolution is that it sets parameters. It makes assumptions as to 
programmatic activity, but it does not legislate programmatic 
conclusions.
  Consequently, I find myself able to support the Republican 
alternative because I think its major thrust is the soundest of all the 
alternatives before us. It would have been better had we been able to 
modify some of its provisions rather than having to appear to be giving 
an imprimatur to all aspects of it, when there are significant parts of 
it which could be improved by modification or even some elimination.
  I regret very much not to be able to support this rule, and I 
understand the difficulty of the Committee on Rules in a totally open 
rule on a budget resolution. But certainly, there are very significant 
amendments that members have chosen to offer, wanted to offer, but this 
rule permits them from doing so. I think, therefore, it is dificient.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from greater downtown metropolitan San Dimas, 
CA [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL, for yielding time to me.
  I guess on our side, we are going to have Committee on Rules' members 
sort of wrapping things up. So I will try not to take all of the 
remaining time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Let me say that we are opposing this rule, Mr. Speaker, for a number 
of reasons. And I would like to focus for just a moment on an issue 
here that we have tried to address in the past and last night when we 
were marking this rule up. I offered an amendment to try and address 
it. Unfortunately, it was defeated.
  We have this marvelous sounding provision called the king of the hill 
procedure. The king of the hill procedure, based on the structure that 
we have, says that the last amendment that passes is the one that 
actually is implemented. It seems to me that that is not a real king of 
the hill procedure.
  When I was a kid, and I know many of the rest of my colleagues all 
played that game of king of the hill, it was who got to the top of the 
hill and was actually able to survive.
  Unfortunately, we have this king of the hill procedure which allows 
basically a bait and switch. We can cast a vote on an item and end up 
with something else. We can be drawn into a proposal and end up with 
something else. Why? Well, we have five substitutes that are called for 
under this rule.
  We have proposals that bring about great reductions, the Solomon 
substitute, the Kasich substitute.
  Every Member here will have an opportunity to vote for those, making 
the claim that they voted to bring about reductions in spending, yet if 
we end up voting for the last substitute, which does not bring about 
the kind of meaningful spending cuts that we believe are necessary and 
that the American people believe are necessary, those earlier votes 
that they have cast will not count. And the last one is the only one 
that counts.
  So, what will Members be able to do. They will be able to say yes, of 
course, I voted to bring about those cuts by supporting this Solomon 
effort to be specific on measures that should be reduced. But they will 
not be accountable for it.
  Mr. Speaker, we should end this king of the hill procedure or at 
least put into place a meaningful king of the hill procedure so that 
substitute, the proposal which gets the largest number of votes is the 
one which we actually pass.
  Let us defeat this rule, come back with a king of the hill procedure 
which is meaningful, and does what we believe should be done and that 
is bring about the accountability that is necessary, and pass a budget 
that will be acceptable to the American people. I thank my friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley].
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is spring, it is budget time, and the 
minority is going to be run over--again. The majority suggests this is 
good. I think not.
  Today, America will see the President's budget, which includes few 
cuts and many taxes. The Democrats assure us that the road to 
prosperity is paved with taxes.
  This is an argument I have never understood: How can you and I be 
more prosperous if the Government takes our money? We have less, so how 
can we be more prosperous?
  The majority claims it is time for hard choices. I agree, but those 
choices can never be made if they are not brought to the floor.
  Mr. Burton has formulated his freeze plus 2 percent solution which 
would balance the budget by the year 2001.
  My plan is similar to Mr. Burton's--the only real difference being my 
reconciliation language instructs the Committee of the Whole to reduce 
expenditures by $34 billion.
  This is a novel approach--permissible under the rules. Such an 
approach would give all Members a chance to participate in the 
budgetmaking process--the only way we can take the budget process out 
of the back rooms and onto C-Span for the public to see.
  This is the only time the whole budget would be in front of Congress, 
and all Members should be allowed to offer their alternatives, to offer 
specific budget cuts.
  But they are not. Instead, Members are required to submit a complete 
budget document, one that includes CBO projections.
  Such a task is daunting when you consider a sample budget is a 
minimum of 60 pages long--each page replete with endless line items.
  So what has happened? Most Members have resigned themselves to 
spectator status because they lack the staff to draft such a document.
  Under the Budget Act, any budget line item increasing spending must 
be balanced by a corresponding cut from someplace else.
  Americans want the merits of honey subsidies, highways, and defense 
debated--weighed one against the other.
  Since I first proposed an across-the-board freeze in 1988, I have 
talked to many people from farmers to seniors to veterans to Federal 
workers. They all say the same thing: ``The budget should not be 
balanced on my back alone.'' All of them have been willing to shoulder 
the burden--if everyone else also does.
  Equity, and equity alone, should drive the budget talks.
  Vote down the rule, so all Members can participate in the debate.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the chairman and 
the members of the House Committee on the Budget for producing a bill 
of which they and this Congress can be justifiably proud.
  In an economic and political environment in which nothing large or 
small is attempted without a wary eye toward cost, the committee has 
produced a budget measure that embodies the same responsible fiscal 
behavior that Americans demanded of last year's budget.
  Although this budget resolution differs somewhat from President 
Clinton's original proposal to Congress, it continues the fiscal 
constraint that was reintroduced to Government with last year's 
budget--the first budget of this administration. As a result, this 
proposal brings the 1995 Federal deficit down to $175.3 billion, the 
lowest level in 5 years. It is more than $100 billion below the 
projection made by CBO in January 1993.
  There is yet another accomplishment in this budget proposal for which 
the committee is to be commended. It is a difficult accomplishment and 
one more intimate to individual Americans than are the arithmetic 
puzzles offered them by Federal number-crunchers. In continuing this 
administration's precedent of well-targeted outlays, this is a very 
human budget as much as it is a Government budget.
  The budget presented to us today has as its guidance the needs of 
individuals and families. It contains funding for emergency food 
assistance, for badly needed mass transit, and for home energy 
assistance. Although it achieves the lowest deficit since 1975 when 
measured against the size of the economy, it funds new initiatives in 
education and training, in health and human services, in crime control, 
and in community development. This budget is geared to continue the 
rise in employment that Congress and the administration accomplished 
with the preceding budget.
  The proposal which the House Committee on the Budget has crafted and 
set before us for consideration seeks not to further burden American 
citizens, but rather to free them from their burdens.
  One of the most loved members of this Chamber, the late Speaker Tip 
O'Neil, used to caution that ``All politics is local.'' This budget 
reflects the best kind of local politics. It is a reflection of a 
Congress that has used as its guidance the needs of the people in the 
cities, towns, and counties throughout this country. As those people 
have articulated their needs to us, so the committee has directed the 
impact of its good fiscal judgment where it will most directly meet 
those needs.
  My congratulations to the members of the Budget Committee for their 
skilled accomplishment of a most difficult task.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my intent here is to make a remark, use a little of our 
time, and then yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to 
close for the balance.
  Mr. Speaker, all I want to add to the remarks of my colleague from 
California, Mr. Dreier, about the king of the hill is this: the trouble 
with the king of the hill is you do not get the best of the rest, you 
have a bunch of losers left at the bottom of the hill, and that is why 
we do not like the king of the hill, because the best of the rest has 
some good stuff in it.
  And the other point I want to make is about the deficit: when we are 
talking about the ship of state and the deficit, we do not want to brag 
because the ship sink sank in 1,000 feet of water rather than 120,000 
feet of water. The point is not to let the ship of state sink under the 
deficit at all. And that is why we have to get rid of the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], ranking member of the Committee 
on Rules, has an outstanding substitute amendment for us.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, even though the rule that we are about to vote on does 
make in order my personal balanced budget substitute, I do have to 
oppose the rule because, Mr. Speaker, the House again is not being 
allowed to work its will.
  And we had a number of Members of Congress, all respectable Members, 
Democrats and Republicans, that came before the Rules Committee 
yesterday, with good ideas that ought to be brought to the floor of 
this House. And those good ideas are not going to be allowed.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] was one, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] was another, and on our side of the aisle we 
have Mrs. Bentley who has a different approach to balancing the budget 
than I do with my specific cuts. Hers would limit line item increases 
to 2 percent. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has talked about 
the Burton substitute and Schaefer's and his own specific cuts, and Mr. 
Speaker, the House is not being allowed to work its will and that is 
why we really should defeat this rule and let the other credible 
substitutes be brought on the floor so that every Member is not 
discriminated against.

                              {time}  1120

  Having said all of that, I do want to thank the majority for making 
in order our balanced budget which will be brought to the floor 
sometime around 4 or 5 o'clock this afternoon.
  First of all, I want to urge every member on both sides of the aisle 
to vote for the Republican alternative, the so-called Kasich budget. It 
is an outstanding budget. It goes a long way toward beginning to bring 
some fiscal responsibility into this body. It cuts these projected 
deficits on an annual basis considerably more than what the Clinton 
budget does.
  Having said that, also, I would just like to say that it is 
completely compatible to vote for the Solomon approach as well. And 
what we do, Mr. Speaker, is we, in the year 1999, actually balance the 
budget. We end up with a $2 million surplus, and in the year 2000 and 
2001 we begin to pay off that debt that has just about bankrupted this 
great Nation of ours.
  So I would just hope that Members come to the floor. We have here a 
copy of the specific cuts. I might just point out, Mr. Speaker, you 
know, most of the time when budgets are offered, you get something like 
this, and this is just a bunch of functions. It does not really mean 
anything. I would invite every Member to come over and look at it. You 
could not tell one thing being cut in that, because all it is is just a 
level of functions.
  What we do, which is not very politic, is we actually show you over 
$600 billion in spending cuts, 500 of them listed right here, and it 
does this without raising taxes, without touching Social Security trust 
funds, without touching earned veterans' benefits, and it restores 
defense spending, because I have had a number of Members from 
conservative Democrats on your side of the aisle who have come to me 
and asked me what I do in my budget with defense spending. We restore 
$50 billion of those cuts that President Clinton recommended.
  We still manage to balance the budget in 1999. It is completely 
compatible to vote for the Kasich Republican alternative and for the 
Solomon substitute.
  Again, if we were not under this king of the hill, we would let the 
one with the most votes then survive, and that would become the law of 
the land. However, we will have to wait and see how that plays out.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member come to the floor and vote 
against the rule so that we can bring back a rule that does not 
discriminate against any Member.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body on both sides of the 
aisle to vote for the rule. It is a good rule. It is a fair rule. I 
urge the Members also to vote for the budget resolution. It is a 
resolution that, I think, will continue to carry our economy forward 
with less unemployment, with keeping the economy moving, increasing 
jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clyburn). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 171, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               YEAS--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--171

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Brooks
     Conyers
     Crane
     Crapo
     Dellums
     Gallo
     Hastings
     Kopetski
     Lightfoot
     Natcher
     Portman
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Walsh
     Washington

                              {time}  1151

  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI and Mr. PICKETT changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________