[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        A TO Z SPENDING CUT PLAN

                                 ______


                        HON. HERBERT H. BATEMAN

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 24, 1994

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3266, commonly 
called the A to Z spending cut plan, who has not to date signed 
discharge petition 16 to force the bill and the proposed rule governing 
its consideration to the floor.
  Every bill I cosponsor is not for that reason alone appropriately the 
subject of a discharge petition to bring it to the floor, bypassing 
normal legislative procedures. Bringing bills to the floor by discharge 
petition should be the exception not the rule. Otherwise there could be 
no orderly legislative process.
  Obviously, I am in accord with the thrust of the A to Z spending cut 
plan. If I were not I would not have cosponsored it. Even as I did so 
there were unanswered questions as to the manner in which the bill 
would be considered on the floor of the House. Those questions are 
normally answered in the terms of a rule proposed by the Rules 
Committee as to the bill reported from committees. On November 9, 1993 
a proposed rule governing how the A to Z plan would be considered on 
the floor of the House was introduced and was referred to the Rules 
Committee for consideration. Much later, on April 18, 1994, a new rule 
governing the consideration of the A to Z plan was introduced, which 
was different from the originally proposed rule. It is this later 
proposed rule which is the subject of discharge petition 16 which was 
filed on May 4, 1994.
  My cosponsorship of H.R. 3266, the A to Z plan, is not inconsistent 
with my decision to refrain from signing the petition to discharge from 
committee the most recently proposed rule, which by its terms makes 
significant changes in H.R. 3266. I still agree with the intent of H.R. 
3266 as contained in the most recent proposed rule and discharge 
petition 16. The real issue is the procedure controlling consideration 
of H.R. 3266.
  As a Member of Congress I should be able to expect the leadership of 
the House of Representatives to bring the A to Z plan to the floor 
under procedures that allow Members of the House to work their will on 
spending cuts in an orderly, structured manner. The leadership owe this 
to the 228 sponsors of H.R. 3266.
  My support for deficit reduction has been consistent and is abiding. 
In 1991, I was the only Member of the House whose legislative proposals 
would have resulted in a net decrease in spending. I have long 
supported a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto for the 
President, and still do.
  The 228 Members who cosponsor the A to Z plan clearly manifest the 
will of the House to meaningfully address deficit reduction. It could 
not be more clear that the leadership of the House is dramatically out 
of step with the majority of its Members, if they do not bring to the 
floor a workable way in which the House can debate and act upon 
spending cuts.
  The leadership is said to be in negotiation with Democratic deficit 
hawks regarding a more structured approach to deficit reduction and I 
applaud that. This is not, however, sufficient. The leadership of the 
deficit reduction effort has been bipartisan and clearly Republicans 
need to be at the table when a more satisfactory procedure for acting 
on spending cuts is developed. Mr. Zeliff and other Republicans should 
be consulted. They appreciate the desirability of a better structured, 
yet meaningful legislative process for assuring that Members of the 
House do indeed face up to the hard choices spending reductions entail.
  The proposed rule for the consideration of the A to Z plan has major 
procedural flaws, and while I for now have concluded I should not sign 
discharge petition 16, my decision will be reconsidered unless there is 
a truly bi-partisan effort to develop a better procedure which still 
assures that the Members of the House have the opportunity to consider 
spending cuts that will bring us to the balanced budget the great 
majority of Members advocate.

                          ____________________