[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.
____________________