[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 68 (Thursday, May 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4454, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 444

       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 bill (H.R. 4454) making appropriations for the 
     legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
     and shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. 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 the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against amendments printed 
     in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment made in order by this 
     resolution. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     reduce to not less than five minutes the time for voting by 
     electronic device on any postponed question that immediately 
     follows another vote by electronic device without intervening 
     business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
     device on the first in any series of questions shall be not 
     less than fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit, or to 
     recommit with instructions if offered by Representative Young 
     of Florida or a designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Solomon, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 444 is the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4454, the legislative branch appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995. The resolution provides 1 hour of general debate 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. House Resolution 
444 also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized 
appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriations 
bill, against all provisions in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order only those amendments that are 
printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this rule and the 
amendments are to be considered in the order and manner specified in 
the report and all amendments will be debatable for 10 minutes each.
  The amendments made in order under this rule are not subject to 
amendment, are considered as read, and are not subject to a demand for 
a division of the question. All points of order against the amendments 
made in order in this rule are waived.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule further permits the Chairman of the Whole to 
postpone consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment and to reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the 
first of a series of votes.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit or 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions, if offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] or his designee.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill brought before us today is the product of many 
hours of hard work and the Members and the staff certainly deserve our 
appreciation.
  The bill is important in many ways because it funds not only the 
operations of the House of Representatives but it also provides for the 
funding of other agencies critical to the mission of the legislative 
branch such as the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, 
and the General Accounting Office. While most of the funds in this bill 
are for the salaries for our staff and for the staff of these other 
agencies, it must be noted that this is the first time in 4 years that 
there is an increase in this bill--however modest it may be.
  The Appropriations Committee, has made some very hard choices so that 
there is the most bang for the buck in this legislation. The very lean 
funding provided in this bill will make it possible for us to fulfill 
our constitutional obligations and serve our constituents as well as 
possible.
  I made the point yesterday in our Rules Committee hearing and I want 
to make it again--the legislative branch is a coequal branch of 
Government and must be treated as such. The trimming of the cost of 
governing is necessary but we cannot cut for the sake of cutting and we 
cannot cut and cut and cut when these cuts are not in the best 
interests of the country.
  Traditionally, this bill has provided a wonderful opportunity for 
some to grandstand and say that this particular agency should be 
abolished or that this particular account is merely an example of 
Government waste. I view most of these arguments as flimsy at best and 
only allow for a slick soundbite and maybe a nice addition to a 
campaign brochure.
  We received many valid and worthwhile proposals to this bill. The 
Rules Committee has made in order many amendments--some I agree with 
and some I don't--but all of them deserved to be brought before the 
House and debated on their merits. What I feel we must resist are the 
kind of amendments that make for good television but terrible public 
policy.
  I would once again like to recognize the fine work that this bill 
represents and again make the point as forcefully as I can--the 
legislative branch has sustained continual cuts in its funding over the 
last 15 years. Vital capital projects have had to be postponed and we 
have not been able to maintain pace with the Consumer Price Index. The 
executive branch, on the other hand, has grown at a rate nearly 40 
percent greater than the legislative branch over this same period.
  This pattern does not serve anyone well. The U.S. Government is the 
most representative in all of the world and without a doubt, we are 
certainly the most responsive to the needs of our citizens. The funds 
in this bill will simply allow the functions of the legislative branch 
to be carried out.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the Rules 
Committee has made in order 12 amendments to this bill that represent a 
total of $177 million in possible cuts--that's over 9 percent of the 
reported bill. There are three Democratic amendments, three Republican 
amendments, and six bipartisan amendments.
  This is a fair rule.
  It is the job of the Rules Committee to recommend to the body a 
structure that allows for a full discussion of the issues while at the 
same time bringing the matter to a final vote for resolution of the 
matter. This rule allows for that discussion, it allows for many 
cutting amendments, and it will bring the bill to a final vote for a 
decision by this entire body.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this is a bill of vital importance. It 
is a product of a lot of very hard work. There are many fine proposals 
that are made in order under this rule and I expect a very good debate. 
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support this important 
bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Edgefield, South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] one of the very respected Members of this body, 
for yielding me half of his time.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I ask every Republican to vote no on 
this rule and to vote no on the bill if the rule passes.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations justified a restrictive gag rule for the foreign 
operations bill on the grounds that President Reagan--listen to this 
now--President Reagan once asked him to seek such a rule. I am sure it 
must come as some surprise to his colleagues in the Democrat Caucus 
that he is still taking his marching orders from a Republican President 
who left office over 5 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I cannot wait to hear 
who has directed the chairman to seek this gag rule on the legislative 
branch appropriations bill. For all I know his latest marching orders 
must have been found in some newly discovered Presidential papers of 
Millard Fillmore.
  It might all be funny, Mr. Speaker, if it were not so sad.
  Here we are, about to debate a bill appropriating nearly $2 billion, 
$2 billion for the legislative branch of Government, and we are being 
told by this rule that members of that very same branch are not 
competent enough to fully and freely debate and amend this bill. I mean 
what is going on around here?
  Somebody from the majority side of the aisle says, ``Beam me up.'' 
Who is that over there?
  I say to my colleagues, ``this rule is a little like buying a house 
and then being told that someone else will write our household budget 
for us because we are not capable of managing our own household 
affairs.''
  Here we are in this House, guardians of the people's purse, read the 
Constitution, being told that we are not mature or intelligent enough 
to vote on how the people's money should be spent on our own budget! 
Well, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but this kind of rule turns the 
Constitution on its head, and it is just one more piece of evidence of 
why the people are increasingly frustrated with this Democrat 
controlled Congress. And I say to those colleagues, ``Boy, it's going 
to come back to haunt you.''
  Mr. Speaker, the people sent us here to represent them, to vote for 
them, to decide on how their hard earned tax dollars should be spent or 
saved. That is what they learned in their civic books about how our 
republican form of government is supposed to work. Yet they see rule 
after rule like this that tie the hands of their duly elected 
Representatives and, in turn, disenfranchises all 600,000 of the 
constituents that each of us represent because we cannot offer 
amendments on this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the people also learned that the Congress is the 
guardian of the purse strings, that only Congress can appropriate money 
and raise taxes, and that only this House has the power to originate 
both tax and spending bills. Read the Constitution. And yet this rule 
says no to that concept embodied in our Constitution. This rule says 
that a pair of committees beats a full house, Mr. Speaker. The 
Committee on Rules and the Committee on Appropriations presumably have 
more collective wisdom than all of the rest of us put together.
  Am I exaggerating when I make that claim? Sadly I am not. It was 
confirmed in a marathon 15-hour Committee on Rules meeting yesterday 
when we were lectured by our Democrat colleagues over and over again 
that we had to shut down this rule to prevent, and I quote, ``cheap 
shot amendments.'' Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to raise a question of the 
collective privileges of this House against such characterization of 
the Members of this body. Those statements reach an all-time low, in my 
opinion, in trashing this body. How can we expect the people to have 
confidence in us when those in positions of power and supposed 
leadership can go around calling Members a bunch of cheap shot artists? 
What kind of leadership is it that expresses no confidence in its own 
Members and the people they represent just because Members want to 
offer cutting-spending amendments that would cut our own budget?

  I ask my colleagues, ``What do you think the American people think 
about that?''
  Is there any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the public's approval rating 
of Congress hovers around an abysmal 20 percent, and is going down? Why 
have they lost confidence in us? One reason is that our leaders 
arrogantly, and I say arrogantly, gag us by refusing to let the House 
work its will on this floor by offering cutting amendments to these big 
spending bills. Mr. Speaker, how can we expect to cut spending when the 
leadership denies us the opportunity to offer these cutting 
amendments--over 35 of them--when we are not trusted by the Democrat 
leaders to manage our own House?
  I would suggest it is time for a change around here, time for a 
change from top to bottom to put the people back in charge of this 
House through a free and open legislative process. And I say, ``You can 
count on that happening, Mr. Speaker, if the American people kick out 
these Democrats who are blocking these amendments and put Republicans 
in charge of this House. You're seeing it happen with every special 
election; there was one just 2 days ago.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership tells us that this House is 
downsizing, downsizing its budget. Yet this bill appropriates 5.7 
percent more than last year's bill, $107 million more. Keep in mind 
that the leaders of the Democratic Party are boasting that we are 
cutting legislative personnel by 4 percent, but we are still spending 
more money.
  How is that?
  Mr. Speaker, only in our Nation's Capital can we downsize and spend 
up. Yet that same Democrat leadership is doing all it can to dilute and 
divide and delay any House action on the joint reform committee's 
recommendation to streamline and improve this institution. They are 
blocking our own Republican amendments to further strengthen those 
reforms, like eliminating proxy voting, eliminating one-third of the 
committees, eliminating one-third of the staff. We cannot even offer 
those amendments, Mr. Speaker.
  We can, if given an opportunity, reduce the size of this bureaucracy 
that has overcome us here in Congress and make this a leaner, more 
effective policymaking body. We have got committees and subcommittees 
and staff stepping all over each other around here, fighting over turf 
instead of focusing on making good laws for the people. We have got 
some 12 House committees alone, listen to this, and dozens of 
subcommittees working on just one health bill. Can anyone really think 
that good health policy can emerge from such a mishmash of tangled 
jurisdiction?
  Where is congressional reform? It is being blocked by Democrat 
leaders, that's where.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to get so excited. We deserve 
a chance to make some meaningful and thoughtful cuts in this 
congressional bureaucracy so we can get back to the basics of doing 
what the people sent us here to do. And what was that? It is to work 
for them instead of for the greater enhancement of all our tiny little 
fiefdoms around here. I am asking for a no vote on this rule so we can 
bring this bill back to the House under the kind of open amendment 
process that was always over the last 200 years on regular 
appropriation bills.

                              {time}  1140

  We have always had that privilege. Let us start to do things right 
again before we lose control of the purse strings in this House.
  If this rule passes, I want every Republican to vote no on this bill, 
and I would strongly advise the Democrats to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I include with my remarks the following materials on 
open rules and rollcall votes, as follows:

 Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions to Proposed Rule for 
 the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (H.R. 4454) Wednesday, May 
                                25, 1994

       1. Open Rule--Provides for one-hour of general debate 
     followed by an open amendment process under the five minute 
     rule. (See end of list for text of open rule.) Rejected: 4-9 
     Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter.
       2. Motion To Make In Order Prefiled Amendments on 
     Republican List--Rejected: 4-8. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Wheat.
       3. Castle Amendment No. 2--Would terminate the current 
     allowable practice of transferring up to $25,000 from Office 
     Expenses Account to the Official Mail Account. Rejected: 4-8. 
     Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Wheat.
       4. Hoke/Coppersmith/Jacobs Amendment No. 3--Would reduce 
     funding in the bill by an amount equal to that requested for 
     the purchase of calendars from the U.S. Capitol Historical 
     Society for the use by Members. Rejected: 4-8. Ayes: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Wheat.
       5. Klug Amendment No. 7--Prohibits use of Members' official 
     allowance for any Legislative Service Organization (LSO) 
     except the Democratic Study Group (DSG) and the Republican 
     Study Committee. Rejected: 4-8. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Wheat.
       6. Boehner Amendment No. 8--Alters Official Mail formula 
     and bans the transfer of funds from Member's Official 
     Expenses Account to the Official Mail Allowance. [En bloc] 
     Rejected: 4-7. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat.
       7. Boehner Amendment No. 9--Reduces statutory funds for 
     committee employees by $2.2 million. Rejected: 4-8. Ayes: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Wheat.
       8. Boehner Amendment No. 10--Reduces Official Mail Account 
     by $3.2 million. Rejected: 4-8. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon. Not Voting: Wheat, Slaughter.
       9. Motion To Increase Cut in Lancaster/Klug No. 36 By $1 
     Million--Rejected: 4-9. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, 
     Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter.
       10. Lancaster/Klug No. 36--Cuts $4.441 million from the 
     GPO, Congressional Printing Account. Adopted: 11-0-2. Ayes: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Present: Frost, Wheat.
       11. Motion to Change Pomeroy/Quinn No. 21 to Quinn/Pomeroy 
     No. 21--Rejected: 4-9. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, 
     Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter.
       12. Boehner Amendment No. 11--Applies Freedom of 
     Information Act requirements to certain congressional 
     agencies. Rejected: 4-9. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, 
     Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter.
       13. Camp/Zimmer Amendment No. 12--Permits Members to return 
     unspend funds from Clerk Hire, Official Expenses, and 
     Official Mail Cost accounts to the Treasury for deficit 
     reduction. Rejected: 5-8. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss, Derrick. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, 
     Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter.
       14. Fowler/Torkildsen Amendment No. 13--Requires that each 
     Member's monthly franking expenditures be made available to 
     the public. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon. 
     Not Voting: Derrick, Wheat, Slaughter.
       15. Motion to Delete ``To the extent practicable'' from 
     Traficant No. 1--Rejected: 3-8. Ayes: Solomon, Derrick. Nays: 
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon. Not Voting: 
     Wheat, Slaughter.
       16. Traficant Amendment No. 1--Sense of Congress that, to 
     the extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased 
     with funds made available in this bill, must be American-
     made. Additionally, all entities receiving funds in this bill 
     should be sent a notice of this Sense of Congress. Adopted: 
     8-0-2. Ayes: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon, 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier. Present: Frost, Goss. Not Voting: 
     Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       17. Goss Amendment No. 15--Reduces all discretionary 
     amounts in the bill by 20%. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       18. Mica Amendment No. 19--Requires that funds for salaries 
     and expenses of the Committee on Government Operations be 
     allocated to the majority and minority staff proportional to 
     the party representation in the House. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, 
     Slaughter.
       19. (En Bloc) Ewing Amendment No. 23--Provides $1.14 
     million for the LBJ Congressional Internship Program. Ewing 
     Amendment No. 24--Cuts $1.14 million from the funding for 
     committee investigative staff. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       20. Dunn Amendment No. 25--Reduces the funding for 
     committee investigative staff by 4% ($2.1 million). Rejected: 
     4-6. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, 
     Wheat, Slaughter.
       21. Dunn Amendment No. 26--Requires that one-third of 
     investigative funds made available for each committee be 
     expended at the discretion of the ranking minority member of 
     the committee. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, 
     Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       22. Blute Amendment No. 27--Reduces official mailings to 
     1.5 per address, prohibits transfer of up to $25,000 from 
     other office accounts to the official mail account, prohibits 
     unsolicited mail within 60-days of an election, and directs 
     that all unspent funds be returned to the Treasury. Rejected: 
     4-6. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, 
     Wheat, Slaughter.
       23. Michel Amendment No. 28--Requires a 4% cut in the 
     number of FTE employee positions from the Sept. 30, 1995 
     level and from the Sept. 30, 1996 level in each of the 
     following: the House and Senate, Architect, Capitol Police, 
     CBO, Copyright Tribunal, GAO, GPO, OTA, and the Library of 
     Congress. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, 
     Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       24. (En Bloc) Ramstad Amendment No. 29--Requires an across-
     the-board cut of 2.7%, and, Ramstad Amendment No. 30--
     Requires an across-the-board cut of 5.7%. Rejected: 4-5. 
     Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Beilenson, Hall, Wheat, 
     Slaughter.
       25. Schaefer Amendment No. 31--Reduces all committee staff 
     funding by 25%. Rejected: 4-5. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, 
     Gordon. Not Voting: Moakley, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       26. Thomas (WY) Amendment No. 33--Reduces funding for GAO 
     by about 15%, from $439 million to $373 million. Rejected: 4-
     5. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Moakley, Hall, 
     Wheat, Slaughter.
       27. Goss Amendment No. 34--Reduces nursing position 
     salaries under the Architect of the Capitol by $240,000. Goss 
     Amendment No. 35--Reduces by 50% the amount appropriated to 
     the Office of Attending Physician; reduces number of Navy 
     personnel assigned to the Office from 14 to 8; and reduces by 
     50% the allowable reimbursement to the Navy for personnel and 
     supplies. Rejected 3-7. Ayes: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Quillen. 
     Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       28. Thomas (CA) Amendment No. 37--Sets the maximum 
     statutory mail allowance at the first class postage rate 
     multiplied by twice the number of eligible district 
     addresses, rather than the current law 3 times the number of 
     eligible addresses. Rejected: 4-6. Ayes: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       29. Motion To Report Rule--Modified closed. Adopted: 5-4-1. 
     Ayes: Moakely, Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon. NAYS: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Present: Frost. Not Voting: 
     Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       (Note: The amendments would not be subject to amendment but 
     debatable for 20-minutes each divided between the proponent 
     or a designee and an opponent; en bloc amendments would not 
     be subject to a division in the House or committee of the 
     whole; and appropriate waivers would be provided to those 
     amendments which need them.)
                                  ____


     H.R. 4454, Providing an Open Rule for the Legislative Branch 
                           Appropriations Act

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``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 the 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4454) making appropriations 
     for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, and the first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After general 
     debate which shall be confined to the bill, and which shall 
     not exceed one hour to be equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the 
     provisions of clauses 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. At the 
     conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.''.
       Explanation: This amendment to the proposed rule provides 
     for a 1-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4454, 
     the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
     1995. Clauses 2 and 6 of the rule 21 are waived against 
     provisions of the bill. Finally, the rule provides for one 
     motion to recommit.
                                  ____


    Restrictive Rules on Appropriations Bills, 95th-103d Congresses


                             95th Congress

       Four restrictive rules were granted on regular 
     appropriations bills: H. Res. 664 on H.R. 7932, the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, permitting open 
     amendment process except only one specified amendment on the 
     subject of Congressional pay; H. Res. 1236 on H.R. 12928, 
     Public Works Appropriations, prohibiting amendments only in 
     one specified area; H. Res. 1220 on H.R. 12929, Labor-HEW 
     Appropriations, making in order only two amendments to the 
     abortion section; and H. Res. 1230 on H.R. 12932, Interior, 
     prohibiting amendments that would make the availability of 
     appropriations contingent on enactment of the relevant 
     authorizations.


                             96th congress

       One restrictive rule, H. Res. 335, was granted on a regular 
     appropriations bill, H.R. 4389, Labor-HEW Appropriations, 
     permitting only two amendments to the section on abortion.


                             97th congress

       No restrictive rules were granted on a regular 
     appropriation bill.


                             98th congress

       No restrictive rules were granted on a regular 
     appropriations bill.


                             99th congress

       One restrictive rule (H. Res. 481) was granted on a regular 
     appropriations bill; H.R. 5052, the Military Construction 
     Appropriations bill, but it did not affect the regular 
     amendment process--only a new title relating to Contra Aid.


                             100th congress

       One restrictive rule (H. Res. 457) was granted on a regular 
     appropriations bill, H.R. 4637, the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill, permitting only 18 amendments printed in 
     the Rules Committee report (11 Republican and 7 Democrat).


                             101st congress

       One restrictive rule (H. Res. 425) was granted on a regular 
     appropriations bill, H.R. 5114, the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill, permitting only 11 amendments printed in 
     the Rules Committee report (8 Democrat and 3 Republican).


                             102d congress

     First session
       One restrictive rule (H. Res. 177) was granted on a regular 
     appropriations bill, H.R. 2621, Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations, permitted only 11 amendments (6 Democrat and 
     5 Republican).
     Second session
       Two restrictive rules were granted in the second session of 
     the 102nd Congress on regular appropriations bills: H. Res. 
     499 on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for fiscal 
     1993 (H.R. 5427), permitting only 12 amendments (2 by 
     Democrats and 9 Republicans, though five of the Republican 
     amendments were left exposed to points of order, and one of 
     which required a defeat of the motion to rise in order to be 
     offered); and H. Res. 501 on the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill for fiscal 1993, permitting only 5 
     amendments (2 by Democrats and 3 by Republicans).


                             103d Congress

     First session
       Three restrictive rules were granted in the first session 
     on regular appropriations bills: H. Res. 192, a modified 
     closed rule for the consideration of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations bill (H.R. 2348), allowing for just 6 
     amendments (3 by Democrats and 3 by Republicans); and H. Res. 
     200, a modified closed rule for the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill (H.R. 2295), allowing for the offering of 
     just 5 amendments (1 by a Democrat and 4 by Republicans); and 
     H. Res. 203, a modified open rule providing for the 
     consideration of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
     (H.R. 2445), allowing for just one specified amendment on the 
     Superconducting-Supercollider which is not subject to further 
     amendment, but permitting an open amendment process on the 
     rest of the bill.
     Second session
       As of May 26, 1994, of three rules granted for 
     appropriations bills, two have been restrictive: H. Res. 443, 
     a modified closed rule for the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations Act (H.R. 4426), making in order 8 amendments 
     (3 by Democrats, 5 by Republicans); and H. Res. 444, a 
     modified closed rule for the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act (H.R. 4454), a modified closed rule making 
     in order 12 amendments (8 by Democrats and 4 by Republicans).
       (Note: The above information does not include rules for 
     continuing resolutions (CRs) or supplemental appropriations 
     bills.)
       Source: Congressional Research Service and Rules Committee 
     Minority Staff, based on Rules Committee Calendars, Rules 
     Committee's ``Notice of Action Taken,'' and examination of 
     the texts of reported rules.
                                 ______


  Amendments Made in Order Under the Rule for H.R. 4454, Legislative 
                 Branch Appropriations Fiscal Year 1995

  (Listed in the order they will appear in the report; amendments are 
                     debatable for 10 minutes each)

       21. Pomeroy/Quinn: Reduces official mail costs by $4 
     million for FY 1995.
       41. Thurman: Reduces by $2.942 million the amount 
     appropriated for salaries and expenses of House officers and 
     employees, specifying cuts for: Clerk's Office, Doorkeeper, 
     Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, 
     Historian, Office of Law Revision Counsel and Legislative 
     Counsel.
       43. Strickland: Eliminates $6,580,000 for six new elevators 
     in the Longworth Building.
       36. Lancaster/Klug: Cuts $4.441 million from the GPO, 
     Congressional Printing account.
       14. Johnson (GA)/Torkildsen: Reduces congressional printing 
     at GPO by $3 million.
       39. Torkildsen/Byrne: Reduces funding for the Botanical 
     Garden account by $7,000,000. (construction and renovation 
     project)
       38. Barca/Kleczka/Thomas (CA): Reduces funding for GPO by 
     $1,500,000 (funds to be used in the depository library 
     program for ``electronic access'' of Federal publications).
       6. Roberts/Klug: Reduces full time equivalent (FTE) 
     positions by 300. (revised)
       22. Manton/Dunn: Raises the mandatory retirement age of 
     Capitol Police officers from age 55 to age 57.
       1. Traficant: Sense of the Congress that, to the extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available in this bill, must be American-made. 
     Additionally, all entities receiving funds in this bill 
     should be sent a notice of this Sense of Congress. (revised)
       16. Bereuter: Reduces funding for the General Accounting 
     Office by 5% ($30,868,250).
       20. Boehner: Freezes the overall FY 1995 level at the FY 
     1994 level by: reducing GAO funding by 11%; eliminating $7.8 
     million for Botanical Garden construction, $103,000 for 
     automobiles, and $21,931,000 for OTA; and freezing funds for 
     the Architect of the Capitol, GPO, Congressional Printing and 
     Binding, and joint items of the Congress.

                                  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).............................................           69      14         20       55         80 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 May 25, 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)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191. A: 244-181 (May 25, 
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg. Branch         43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  .................................
                                           Approp, FY 1995.                                                                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, I have one speaker, and I reserve the right 
to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The Chair will inquire, does 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] have any additional speakers?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentleman has no other 
speakers?
  My goodness. Let me yield time, then.
  Mr. DERRICK. We are just trying to save the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. SOLOMON. That would be a first, then.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield 
to my very good friend and distinguished chairman of our Policy 
Committee and the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I want to ask my friend, the gentleman from New York, a point of 
clarification. Did the gentleman say that the Democrats are offering 
this restrictive, very modified rule because they wanted to avoid 
cheap-shot amendments from the Republicans? Is that what they said?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is exactly what they said.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman interpret that remark, as I 
do, that amendments that cut spending and cut staff are cheap-shot 
amendments?
  Mr. SOLOMON. They consider them cheap-shot because they know they 
would pass on the floor and they have to gag Republicans and Democrats 
alike.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I understand the word, ``cheap,'' is not in 
their lexicon, and that is a shame.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman on the other side has no further 
speakers, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on Rules, be 
allowed to manage the remainder of the time for us on this side of the 
aisle, and I yield to him whatever time he might consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for that purpose.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the very 
diligent ranking Republican on the Legislative Appropriations 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House that yesterday I 
had the privilege of meeting with my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], at the Committee on Rules to 
present a bill that we thought was a pretty good bill, but we also 
thought there were some amendments to be made in order that would make 
it a better bill and ones that would be acceptable to the House. As 
always, it was a real pleasure to work with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] there at the Committee on Rules, as we did in 
the full Committee on Appropriations and in the Subcommittee on the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations.
  I was there primarily to ask for an open rule so that all Members 
would have an opportunity to offer an amendment that was germane to 
this bill and let the House work its will. I did not expect that to 
happen anyway, so I was not too offended when that did not happen. I 
did not expect it because it does not happen that much around here.
  But I did intend to support this bill, and after many negotiations 
between the leadership on our side and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio], we had come to what I thought was an acceptable agreement. 
We would like to have had more amendments, but we were ready to settle 
for what we had agreed to. But that is not what the Committee on Rules 
did. So I have to be in opposition to this rule.

  I have listened to a lot of debates on a good many rules, and I hear 
my Republican friends on the Committee on Rules always arguing for the 
right to offer amendments. I am sure that people who observe these 
debates wonder, why is it that the Republicans are the ones who are 
always demanding and arguing for the opportunity to offer amendments to 
legislation? I do not think the answer has ever really been presented, 
but the answer is really simple. The answer is that the Democrats do 
not have to because they control this House. There are 178 Republicans 
and 257 Democrats, and they control the committees and the 
subcommittees with an even greater ratio than that. So the Democrats do 
not have to offer their amendments on the floor because for the most 
part they either are already included in the chairman's mark or they 
are included at the subcommittee level or at the full committee level 
and they get their job done in advance because they control everything. 
The Republicans do not control anything in this House.
  So the only opportunity we have to be equal players, as the 
Constitution intends, is to have an opportunity to have amendments on 
this floor.
  Yesterday at the Committee on Rules, one of the very distinguished 
members of the Committee on Rules asked the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] the question: ``Well, didn't these Members have an 
opportunity to offer their amendments at the subcommittee markup or at 
the full committee markup? What about the chairman's mark?''
  Let me tell the Members a secret about the chairman's mark. There are 
very, very few people who ever see the chairman's mark until the 
members of the subcommittee actually sit at the committee table to 
begin the markup, and if they cannot see the chairman's mark, how in 
the world do they know how to write their amendment?
  I think that it is only proper and I think the Constitution intends 
for Members of either party, majority or minority, to have an 
opportunity to offer amendments that are germane to legislation before 
the House. And I would say this: Because of the numbers that I 
mentioned earlier, the majority party has the power to do what they 
want to do, but they do not have the right.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] has expired, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  The Chair understands that the gentleman from South Carolina has no 
additional speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. There are still no additional speakers? Mr. Speaker, I 
would ask my friend, the gentleman from Edgefield, are there additional 
speakers?
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, we did not figure there was enough worthy 
of response yet.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very 
hardworking Member, the gentleman from Lexington, NE [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule.
  We have a lot of talk around here about regaining control of Federal 
spending and deficit reduction. And we talk alot about leading by 
example and getting our operation and offices in order, before we ask 
for further sacrifice from the people we represent.
  But when it comes time to pay the piper, our talk is just that--
nothing but talk. Again and again road blocks are raised when we try to 
make real and substantive cuts in spending, and to cut it here on 
Capitol Hill first.
  Case in point: My colleague from California, Mr. Thomas, has ready an 
amendment to reduce the official mail allowance by one-third, by 
changing the formula by which the mail allowance is calculated for each 
congressional district.
  That would make for a real cut in how we spend the taxpayers' money 
around here, but we won't have a chance to debate it. Granted, the 
Rules Committee made in order an amendment to reduce the appropriation 
for official mail by $4 million or 11 percent. It's an amendment I'll 
support, but it doesn't get at the root of the problem. And that is the 
mail allowance itself, and how we are allowed to use those funds.
  The Thomas amendment would help curb the large volume of mass 
mailings that account for approximately 86 percent of mail allowance 
activity.
  It's no secret that some Members abuse the franking privilege, by 
using mass mailings to subsidize campaign activity, and this practice 
must cease.
  Members on both sides of the aisle, who came to the floor when 
campaign finance reforms were being debated, discussed the need to make 
elections more equal between incumbent and challenger.
  One way to achieve this goal would be to counteract the enormous 
advantage that incumbents have with their mailing privileges.
  Presently, House members will spend more on mass mailings in the 
1993-94 election cycle, than that spent by challengers for House seats 
in the 1992 general election.
  We should defeat this rule and bring the legislative branch 
appropriations bill to the floor with the opportunity to consider the 
Thomas amendment and all other substantive, cost-cutting amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett] has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend, the gentleman 
from South Carolina, again, are there any other speakers on the other 
side of the aisle, any other Members who are going to be speaking?
  Mr. DERRICK. I would respond to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Laverne, CA, no, have no more speakers at this time.
  Mr. DREIER. So can we anticipate that there will just be one closing 
speaker?
  Mr. DERRICK. We do not have additional speakers at this time. I would 
rather not commit to that in case somebody else over here would decide 
to speak, but we do not have any at this time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are just trying to figure out whether we 
should proceed with using up all our time over here and having 30 
minutes available on this other side of the aisle. That would not be 
very fair as we try to proceed with the debate process.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we always try to be 
fair in the situation. I simply have no speakers.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. There is some time on the other side of the aisle. 
Perhaps the gentleman from South Carolina will yield.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I simply have no more speakers. All right, 
go ahead.

                              {time}  1147

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman, we respect him, and 
think he will be fair. But considering what happened in the 15 hour 
marathon last night, I am just concerned that we might have other 
Members, not as fair as the gentleman, come here in the last 15 
minutes, and then use 15 minutes of the time, when we have no time 
left.
  I would suggest if the gentleman really only has one closing speaker, 
that at some point he will yield back about 10 or 15 minutes of his 
time, so we are not being sandbagged like we were last night, out of 
fairness.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], there is no precedent for anything like that. The only 
thing I can tell you is I have no reason whatsoever to suspect we will 
have a rush at the end here to try to do you in at. I will manage it, 
and be just as fair as I possibly can. I have no reason to think we 
will have any other speakers.
  Mr. SOLOMON. As I said before, I trust the gentleman. I am not so 
trustworthy of others, perhaps.
  Mr. DERRICK. I am not willing to guarantee that or willing to give 
back the balance of my time. If the gentleman wants to give back the 
balance of his time, I will be glad to give back the balance of mine, 
and we can go ahead and vote now.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chair, how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). This time was coming out of Mr. 
Derrick's time. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] has 22 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] has 
16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield one minute to one of the 
diligent reformers who came to this Congress attempting to bring about 
the kinds of changes that the American people want, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
California, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I offered an amendment to H.R. 4454, the 
legislative branch appropriations which would have brought vital reform 
to the House franking budget. My amendment would have allowed a cut of 
more than $7.5 million from the House franking budget in four ways:
  Cut each member's franking allowances by one half.
  Banned the process of transferring funds into the franking account 
from other official expenses.
  Banned all unsolicited mail within 60 days of an election, and
  Directed all unspent franking funds to the treasury and cut the 
deficit.
  The majority of Members in this body already comply with these 
guidelines. So why can't the entire House have an opportunity to vote 
on them? There is no good answer to this question.
  Mine was not the only amendment that was thwarted though. More than 
30 well thought out ideas were rejected by a majority in the Rules 
Committee. In my short time here I have seen an unprecedented number of 
closed rules that prohibit the open discussion of ideas. The public is 
demanding reform of the Congress and the Rules Committee is continuing 
to perpetuate the status quo.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to another new Member of 
Congress, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
thank him for presenting my amendment last night as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult subject, but I came to Congress 
last year with a lot of other people realizing this is a place that 
spends entirely too much money. Today we are facing a piece of 
legislation which is going to increase the spending of Congress, that 
is what this bill is all about, by 5.7 percent. Our own internal 
controls, we are going to increase this by 5.7 percent.
  We have talked about Congressional reform, and we have not seen 
congressional reform on the floor. I have in front of me about 43 
different cuts which were not approved by the Committee on Rules last 
night. There are another dozen or so that were approved by the 
Committee on Rules, probably good cuts, things we should do.
  But the interesting thing is not one piece of legislation introduced 
as an amendment did anything but try to reduce the spending which we 
have here. That must tell us something.
  One example, the area I am concerned about, is called the franking 
privilege. It is a privilege by which Members of Congress write to 
their constituents. In my allowance last year, I had $200,827 by which 
I could send 3 pieces of first class mail to everybody in my district. 
I spent $5,488.94, or 2.73 percent, and I sent out more letters than I 
received in answering all my constituents.
  Do we really need to spend the rest of that money? If we multiply 
that by 435 people, we really begin to save money. Do we need to send 
out calendars, questionnaires, and newsletters? Do we need to have all 
these reelection techniques built into the budget of the legislative 
body of the Congress of the United States of America? I think the 
answer to that is not.
  I merely wanted in an amendment to make absolutely sure you could not 
transfer an additional $25,000 from your expense account into the 
account by which you do your mailing. And that was turned down. I 
thought it was the simplest amendment possible, and yet that was not 
allowed last night by the Committee on Rules.
  So I thank those who supported my amendment. I thank those who stayed 
up so late last night supporting good measures that would help save 
money for the taxpayers of the United States of America. I would 
encourage us today to vote against this rule, to vote against the bill, 
but to support the amendments which would produce further cuts.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler], a leader in the reform 
effort.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I know 
there was a day when appropriations bills came to the floor under open 
rules. That is not the case anymore, and Members must now present their 
amendments to the Rules Committee.
  Forty-three of us did that yesterday. Today, you will have the 
opportunity to debate and vote on just 12 amendments.
  My amendment was simple and straightforward, and its demise in the 
Rules Committee is a good example of why Members should oppose this 
rule.
  Each of us gets a monthly franking report, detailing franked mailings 
and their cost. My amendment would make those reports public. The 
national taxpayers union is already getting the information through 
freedom of information requests. It just makes sense that we should 
provide the information voluntarily, after all it is taxpayer money we 
are spending.
  Under this rule, those reports will remain secret. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chief deputy whip, 
the gentleman from East Petersburg, PA, [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, when we heard that Washington was going to be given the 
privilege of operating under one-party government a couple of years 
back, we were told that one-party government was going to produce 
enormous change. That Washington was going to be presented with a 
reform agenda, and that things were going to be better for middle-class 
America as a result of one-party rule in Washington.
  Today what we see is that one-party rule has simply produced one-
party irresponsibility, because what you have before us is a business-
as-usual budget. One of the things that the American people have said 
over and over again that they want to see changed is the Congress. 
There have been attempts here to paper over the fact that we are not 
changing.
  For example, we went through an exercise of reform called the 
Hamilton-Dreier committee, which was to present to the Congress a 
series of reforms. The reforms suggested by the Hamilton-Dreier 
committee after a year of work have literally been buried. We have not 
seen any of them. And, guess what? We are running a budget out on the 
floor today without having put in place any of those reforms, with no 
intention of moving ahead with those reforms, evidently, in the future, 
and a business-as-usual budget on the floor.
  And, oh, guess what? We are even going to play some little games with 
this budget. They were going to pump the budget up in money so that 
then people could come to the floor and offer amendments to cut back 
down the budget and take credit for the cutting back down of the 
budget. And then what we were going to say was look how much we have 
saved. And we were going to make certain that none of those little 
bitty cuts really did any harm.
  So what we did was we went to the Committee on Rules, and I took the 
time to go up to the Committee on Rules and watch this performance last 
night, as we made in order some amendments that we knew would do no 
particular damage. But the amendments that were real, we simply lopped 
out.
  The rule that you have before you today is a rule designed to make 
certain that nothing really happens; that the Congress continues to go 
forward spending money on itself as though there were no tomorrow; and 
that any amendments that are offered do no real damage to that 
approach; and, oh, by the way, the amendments that were real in terms 
of reform never get to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just absolutely the wrong rule, it is the wrong 
bill.
  Let me tell you one thing: I think America is in the mood for a 
change. Middle-class America has had it with exactly what they see 
going on in the Congress at the present time. I have got one message to 
middle-class America then, Mr. Speaker, and that is, if you want to see 
this kind of performance change, change the House of Representatives.
  I will guarantee one thing: If you put Republicans in charge of this 
body next January, one of the first bills that we will revisit is this 
legislative appropriations bill. We will go back and make certain that 
there is reform. We will pull it into the discussion again. We will 
revisit it. We will get real reform as of next January. But it is 
obviously going to take a new majority here to do it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Addison, MI [Mr. Smith], a hard working new Member who came here on 
that platform of reform.
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the question is what is going to inspire 
Members of Congress to spend less on their office expenses?
  Here is what the kind of rule that I think we should be considering 
today is: allowing each Member to take 25 percent or maybe even 50 
percent of their unspent authorization to go toward deficit reduction.
  I turned back a quarter of a million dollars. I am told I am the 
lowest spender in the U.S. Congress. I asked the Speaker and the 
gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Rose], if it would be possible for 
any of that to go towards deficit reduction. It just seems reasonable 
that if we wanted to excite, inspire, and encourage individuals to have 
some of that money go towards deficit reduction, that would be one way 
to do it.
  Now that we are underfunded, then, of course, we have to use up 
everything. But using up everything that is turned back at the same 
time sends a signal to those Members that they should spend everything 
that they have got.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and would like to say that over the past year, 1993, I had the 
opportunity to serve with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who 
have just been on the floor, on the Joint Committee on the Organization 
of Congress. We were charged with trying to bring about reform of this 
institution.

                              {time}  1200

  Tragically, that reform package has fallen by the wayside. We are 
still hoping that we can bring about some kind of proposal for the 
House to consider, but this legislative appropriation bill demonstrates 
the fact that they are trying to proceed with business as usual.
  This rule is extraordinarily arrogant, prevents Members from having 
the opportunity to offer the cutting amendments which should be 
considered under the standard operating rules of this House. This is 
blatantly unfair, and I believe both Democrats and Republicans should 
vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives is the most 
representative body in the world, as one of the three branches of 
Government that in my opinion has provided our country with prosperity, 
a framework for prosperity, and a free and open Government for over 200 
years.
  If we want to examine the House of Representatives, as many who have 
gone before me have, if we want to examine it in a vacuum, we can 
certainly find many imperfections, but if we want to examine it and 
compare it with other systems, I would suggest that if we did not have 
a House of Representatives, a Congress of this country, that we would 
have one of two things, or we could have one of two things: We could 
have anarchy, we could have people shooting each other in the streets; 
or we could have tyranny, where the Government would be shooting us.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is the U.S. House of Representatives, 
the Congress as a whole, that stands between the American people and 
some catastrophe such as this.
  To continue, we must be funded. We have people who work here. We have 
Members who serve here. We have expenses that are incurred. That is 
what this bill is all about. This bill represents a cut of 9 percent, 
$177 million, out of proposed expenditures. We are continuing to cut 
back and have cut back on a number of areas over the last few years.
  I said it last night on the Committee on Rules and I will say it 
again, it is very easy to come up here and to criticize this body. It 
happens on both sides of the aisle. What I feel is that if we do not 
stop it, we are going to weaken our institutions, and this institution, 
to the point that one of these days somewhere down the line a very 
strong person could come into the White House that was not 
democratically inclined and could take away our freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Members of this body that this is a 
very fair rule. There are six bipartisan amendments, three Democratic 
amendments, three Republican amendments, giving ample opportunity for 
the Members to express themselves as far as cuts are concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members of this body to vote for the 
rule, and to also vote for the appropriation bills which it allows.
  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. Murtha). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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 249, 
nays 177, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               YEAS--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     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
     Harman
     Hastings
     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
     Kopetski
     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)
     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
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     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
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--177

     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
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     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 (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     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
     Portman
     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
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blackwell
     Clayton
     Cox
     Grandy
     Horn
     Lewis (FL)
     Neal (NC)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1226

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Wilson for, with Mr. Cox against.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________