[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4539, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND 
              GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 447 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 447

       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. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. 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. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
     beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 4, line 6, through 
     ``Treasury'' on line 9; and page 87, line 3, through page 88, 
     line 2. Where points of order are waived against only part of 
     a paragraph, a point of order against matter in the balance 
     of the paragraph may be applied only within the balance of 
     the paragraph and not against the entire paragraph. 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.
       Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Committee on Appropriations may file a supplemental 
     report on H.R. 4539 as part 2 of House Report 103-534.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary one-half hour of debate time to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 447 is the rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4539, making appropriations for the Treasury 
Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
President, and certain independent agencies for fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. It provides one hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Appropriations Committee.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, a waiver which is necessary because the Appropriations Committee 
needs to file a supplemental report on its updated allocation.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI against all provisions in the 
bill, with two exceptions. This waiver, protecting certain sections of 
the bill against points of order, is necessary because the bill 
contains appropriations for several agencies which have not yet been 
reauthorized.
  The bill also contains a number of general provisions, most of which 
have been carried for several years. The request for the wavier was 
made by the chairman of the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee and was 
supported by the ranking minority member of the subcommittee.
  The Committee on Rules believes this is a reasonable waiver, 
especially since the bill provides funding for agencies and activities 
for which authorizing legislation has not been finalized.
  Some of the agencies that remain unauthorized are the U.S. Customs 
Service, the Bureau of the Mint, the Office of Special Counsel, the 
Federal Election Commission, and the office of the drug czar in the 
White House.
  The bill also carries language permitting activities not authorized 
by law, but which have been carried in appropriations acts for many 
years. Many of these so-called good government and financial management 
provisions which, for instance, permit agencies to require reports on 
controversial spending items and allows transfers amongst accounts. 
Several new provisions are included, but all are subject to a motion to 
strike--as is every item in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee made two exceptions to the waiver, 
which are clearly identified in the rule so that members are fully 
informed. The exceptions were made at the request of the authorizing 
committees with jurisdiction over the provisions; they are made in 
accordance with a longstanding tradition in the Rules Committee to 
honor such requests.
  The two sections which remain unprotected from a point of order deal 
first, with the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, and, second, with utility 
rebates for certain energy efficiency and water conservation measures.
  Further, the rule provides that if only a portion of a paragraph is 
protected, a point of order may lie only against the balance of the 
paragraph, and not against the entire paragraph. The rule also provides 
one motion to recommit.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule authorizes the Committee on 
Appropriations to file a supplemental report on the bill as part 2 of 
the committee report accompanying H.R. 4539. Under the provisions of 
the budget resolution, the Appropriations Committee approved $405 
million above the budget request for a tax compliance initiative.
  As a result, the Appropriations Committee is required to file this 
supplemental report showing the revised 602(b) allocation. The increase 
is fully in compliance with the provisions of the budget resolution, 
and it is our understanding that it is not controversial. The filing 
requirement is included in the rule merely to expedite the process.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4539, the bill for which this rule provides 
consideration, is the fourth appropriation measure the House has 
considered this year. It appropriates a total of $23.4 billion for the 
Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of 
the President, and certain independent agencies including the Federal 
Election Commission, the General Services Administration, and the 
National Archives.
  The total appropriation is $1.2 billion less than the 
Administration's request and $824.5 million more than the fiscal year 
1994 appropriation, part of which is because of an increase in funding 
for the Internal Revenue Service.
  I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Hoyer, and the 
ranking minority member, Mr. Lightfoot, for their good work in bringing 
to the House a fiscally responsible measure for financing many of the 
agencies that perform the everyday and necessary operations of the 
Government.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, this is an open rule, and I urge my 
colleagues support for it so that we may proceed to consideration of 
the bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has 
thoroughly described this rule providing for the consideration of the 
Treasury, Postal Service and general government appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1995. I will not duplicate his explanation, and I am glad 
to see that the Rules Committee is improving its record of reporting 
out open rules.
  The members of the Appropriations Committee have the thankless job of 
trying to make limited dollars go a long way. I would like to take this 
opportunity to congratulate them for bringing forth this fiscally 
responsible bill, which provides funding for the Treasury Department, 
the U.S. Postal Service, the White House and several other independent 
agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record comparative charts of open 
versus restrictive rules along with the results of several rollcall 
votes on amendments that were offered to this rule in the Rules 
Committee hearing on this matter yesterday. I know many of my 
colleagues have serious concerns over some of the provisions of this 
bill and also over some provisions which are not in this bill. I will 
let them speak for themselves on these matters.

                                  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).............................................           70      15         21       55         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through June 9, 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: Natl.                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).     
                                           authorization.                 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 Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed 
  Rule on H.R. 4539, Treasury/Postal Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1995

       1. Amendment to waive points of order only against 
     unauthorized provisions and to leave legislative provisions 
     in the bill exposed to points of order. (text attached) Vote: 
     (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       2. Solomon--Amendment to require a report to Congress on 
     the status of the White House Drug Testing Program. Vote: 
     (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       3. Solomon--Amendment to prohibit funds under the bill from 
     being used to study drug legalization. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) 
     Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat.
       4. McDade--Amendment to offset the cost of the government-
     wide pay raise provided in the bill. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) 
     Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat.
       5. Lightfoot--Amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the 
     bill for non-official travel by military aircraft. Vote: 
     (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       6. Lightfoot--Amendment to prohibit the use of Office of 
     the President funds in the bill to pay for legal counsel for 
     private legal and financial matters. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) 
     Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat.
       7. Wolf--Amendment to require financial disclosure for non-
     governmental employees who have White House passes, such as 
     political consultants. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       8. Wolf--Amendment to impose deadlines on the amount of 
     time White House staff members have to obtain their permanent 
     White House passes. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       9. Istook--Amendment to establish a disclosure requirement 
     for White House salaries. Vote: (Defeat 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       10. Istook--Amendment to require a report to Congress on 
     non-governmental Presidential travel expenses. Vote: 
     (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       11. Roth--Amendment to reduce funding of Resolution Trust 
     Corporation by $13.3 billion. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat.
       12. Burton--Amendment to require the White House to issue a 
     report detailing the costs and names of participants in the 
     President's official Normandy trip. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) 
     Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat.
       13. Fawell--Amendment to provide an exception from the 
     waiver protecting unauthorized projects (clause 2, Rule XXI) 
     for four specific projects in the General Services 
     Administration, Public Buildings Fund. (text attached) Vote: 
     (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       14. Bachus--(A) Amendment to prohibit funds for locality 
     pay or regional pay differential unless they conform with 
     other executive agencies under Title V; and, (B) Amendment to 
     prohibit funds for the RTC unless the Thrift Depositor 
     Protection Oversight Board complies with the Federal Home 
     Loan Bank Act. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.

     Amendments to Proposed Rule on Treasury-Postal Appropriations


                               H.R. 4539

       1. Waiving Points of Order Only Against Unauthorized 
     Provisions & Leaving Legislative Provisions Exposed--Strike 
     the words ``clause 2 of rule XXI are waived'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``clause 2(a) of rule XXI are waived'', and 
     insert at the end of that sentence the following: ``Any point 
     of order against a provision in the bill for failure to 
     comply with the provisions of clause 2(b) of rule XXI may be 
     made only against such provision and not against the entire 
     paragraph.''.
       Explanation: The purpose of this amendment to the rule is 
     to waive points of order only against unauthorized provisions 
     and to leave legislative provisions in the bill exposed to 
     points of order.


                                 fawell

       The waiver of clause 2, Rule XXI shall not apply to the 
     following provisions in the bill:
       Page 32, line 10, (Albany, GA, Courthouse).
       Page 33, line 2. (Stuebenville, OH, Courthouse).
       Page 33, line 11. (Corpus Christi, TX, Courthouse).
       Page 36, line 25 and all that follows through page 37, line 
     2. (Providence, RI, Courthouse).
       Page 38, line 23, beginning with the word ``the'' and all 
     that follows through the word ``; and'' on page 39, line 1. 
     (all of the above).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues also have concerns on the rule itself. I 
would like them to speak for themselves on these matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that I have to stand up here and oppose 
this rule on what is otherwise a very good piece of legislation. It is 
within the budget, and that is always easy to support.
  I oppose this rule because it takes a rather two-faced approach to 
the issue of legislating in appropriation bills, and because it shuts 
out some very sincere and legitimate amendments offered in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday by Members from both sides of the aisle, 
Democrats and Republicans, being denied here today. Yes, the gentleman 
from California is correct in calling this an open rule as far as that 
goes for appropriation bills, unlike the restrictive rules we had last 
month on the foreign operations and the legislative branch 
appropriation bills. And we are grateful for the fact that we can at 
least reduce or strike provisions in the bill. That is what is allowed 
under the rule of the House, and that is the way it should be.
  But there are times when we ask for what we call open-plus rules, 
because certain amendments require a waiver of points of order, and 
this is one such instance, even though we traditionally do not like to 
waive points of order. I do not like to waive them.
  Why should this rule be any different? The main reason is most of the 
amendments requested in the Committee on Rules go to, and you ought to 
listen to this, Members, go to the Executive Office of the President of 
the United States, which is not subject to an authorization bill. So 
this is really our only opportunity to offer legislative provisions 
affecting that office.
  Let me underscore that point by putting it this way: This is our only 
chance to effectively exercise oversight over the White House through 
legislation and help clean up the mess that exists down there at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and believe me, it is one messy 
operation.
  Let me just cite some of the amendments that were submitted to the 
Committee on Rules and rejected on a party-line vote. I myself had two 
amendments. One would require a status report on the White House drug-
testing program, which may no longer even exist there without anybody's 
approval to stop it, and the other would prohibit funds in the bill 
from being used to study drug legalization, which is threatened by 
President Clinton's Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders. She thinks it is a 
good idea to legalize these illicit drugs killing our kids.
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], ranking Republican on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, had two amendments that would prohibit use 
of funds in the bill for nonofficial travel by military aircraft, and 
we all know about the little problem there. And the second would 
prohibit the use of funds from the office of the President for private 
legal and financial matters.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], sitting back here, would 
require financial disclosure for those nongovernmental employees, such 
four well-known political consultants who have temporary or permanent 
White House passes. The other would impose deadlines on the time, and 
this is so terribly important, for White House employees to obtain 
their passes, a continuing scandal after some 18 months of this 
administration.
  I could go on and on.
  There were some 15 Republicans and another few Democrat amendments 
denied out of hand, and, yes, these all required waivers of points of 
order for them to be offered under the open-plus rule.

  But, Mr. Speaker, I would hasten to point out that the Democrats did 
not flinch in protecting most of the 135 provisions already in the bill 
from points of order, including some pork-barrel projects that my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], wants to get at, 
sitting next to me here.
  What this rule says then is that the appropriators are more 
privileged and presumably more competent and wise than the other 375 
Members of this House when it comes to deciding how to legislate in an 
appropriation bill. How do you like that, Members?
  Try to explain that to your constituents who thought each of us had 
equal rights on this floor.
  But even more troubling, it seems to me, this rule says the Congress 
is not willing to exercise proper oversight of the White House when it 
is controlled by the same party as the Congress, Democrats at both ends 
of Pennsylvania Avenue. We are not willing to demand the same standards 
of this administration that the Congress was so willing to exercise 
when we had a Republican President. That should not be the case.
  We are still supposed to be an independent branch of the Government, 
not a subsidiary of the executive branch. We are still responsible 
under the Constitution for appropriating tax dollars and scrutinizing 
their expenditures to guard against the misuse of public funds.
  Let us ponder that proposition a moment before voting on this rule 
and then do the right thing by voting it down and bringing back a rule 
that allows us to fully and freely exercise those responsibilities of 
being watchdogs of the Treasury and guardians of the purse strings of 
this Government. Our constituents who pay the bills of this Government 
with their hard-earned tax dollars should expect no less of both of us 
on either side of the aisle.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 4539.
  As the ranking Republican on the Treasury, Postal Service, and 
General Government Subcommittee, I offered several amendments myself, 
as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] pointed out, in both the 
subcommittee and the full committee markup that I would like to have 
offered here on the floor, but we were denied the right under the rule.
  The majority denied the right for us to offer limitation amendments 
based on the argument that they would constitute authorizing on an 
appropriation bill. I would like to point out, however, that the rule 
also waives points of order, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] mentioned, against some 135 authorizing provisions that are 
already contained in the bill.
  The question is: Where is the logic in all of this? Clearly the 
Committee on Rules does not object to authorizing language in an 
appropriation bill. The true reason, I suspect, is the majority does 
not want any criticism of the White House to come out in this bill.
  The reason that we are pushing on this rule is that there is just no 
other vehicle for White House oversight. It is a permanently authorized 
budgetary item. It is never discussed, and this is the only vehicle 
that is available anywhere in Congress to talk about the operations 
there.
  I think that as a Congress, we have been negligent in providing some 
badly needed oversight.
  Supporting this rule continues to slide under the rug many conflicts 
of interest, the ethics violations and some of the budgetary 
shenanigans that have been perpetrated.
  If you want to continue to cover up, simply support this rule. If you 
want to show the American people you will not condone or ignore abuses 
of power and tax dollars, then oppose the rule and tell the Committee 
on Rules to let this body do its job on oversight over the dollars we 
provide for operations of the executive branch.
  Whether there is agreement or disagreement on the issues, I think 
that Members of Congress should at least have the opportunity to 
express their opinion, and if in that process the amendments fail, then 
that is how it is supposed to work. But I think we at least should be 
allowed the opportunity to offer those amendments.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  We were foreclosed to offer two amendments.
  The two amendments are as follows: One, there are a number of people 
in the White House, Mr. Begala, Mr. Greenberg, Mandy Grunwald, and 
James Carville, who have White House passes that enable them to visit 
the White House 24 hours a day, and they have complete rein like no 
other administration has had.
  Now, if you have read the book by Bob Woodward called ``The Agenda,'' 
let me tell you what Bob Woodward says in the book. He says:

       Howard Paster was in a slow burn as he listened to 
     Greenberg * * * It was outrageous that the outside 
     consultants were providing the president with major policy 
     option papers in confidential memos that Paster often never 
     saw or saw only too late. If lobbyists with business clients 
     had this kind of relationship with the president, it would be 
     a giant scandal. the consultants had clients, some 
     businesses, some politicians like Senator Moynihan, who paid 
     big fees for their work. Paster wasn't sure the political 
     consultants were that different from other outside 
     businesses. He resented their influence and was sure they 
     presented Clinton with a potentially serious liability. 
     Valuable inside information and conflicts abounded.* * *

  Now, I believe these amendments would have been helpful to save this 
administration and future Republican and Democratic administrations.
  Now, some people say, ``Well, Wolf is just being partisan.'' I would 
like to insert at this point in the Record a copy of a letter that I 
sent to President Bush on the same issue when he hired Jim Lake to work 
not in the White House but in the campaign.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 1992.
     Hon. George Bush,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Today I was one of the 145 House 
     members who voted against H.R. 5100, the ``Trade Expansion 
     Act.'' But I wanted you to know that despite this vote in 
     support of the Administration, I am very distressed with the 
     Administration's apparent indifference to the role of 
     influence peddling by Japanese companies.
       With the trade deficit with Japan being one of our major 
     economic problems, I believe the Administration would be far 
     better served making the free trade case if they did not have 
     high level staffers on board who have profited from lobbying 
     on behalf of Japanese firms that continue to close their 
     markets to the United States.
       For example, Jim Lake, your current Deputy Campaign 
     Manager, has lobbied for such clients as Mitsubishi, Suzuki, 
     and the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association. While I 
     consider Jim Lake personally a good person and I do not mean 
     to assail his character in any way, I would offer, that at 
     the least, having those who have been well paid lobbyists for 
     Japanese corporations in high-level positions in the campaign 
     undermines ``free market'' arguments and certainly gives rise 
     to serious perception problems by the American public. I know 
     it certainly makes it harder for me to make my case to my 
     constituents on this important issue.
       Please consider these concerns. I support the 
     Administration's free trade initiatives, but I also believe 
     that the free trade argument can be made best when our own 
     House is free of foreign entanglements.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Frank R. Wolf
                                               Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                     July 9, 1992.
     Mr. James Lake,
     Deputy Campaign Manager, Bush-Quayle '92, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: Enclosed is a copy of a letter that I wanted you 
     to see that I recently sent to the President following the 
     recent House vote on H.R. 5100, the ``Trade Expansion Act.''
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.
       Enclosure.

                              {time}  1640

  Let me just say if we had accepted this on a voice vote it would be 
over. I predict, I predict that the Clinton administration or Congress 
will fold on this issue because as the American people find out--and 
the Wall Street Journal has done two editorials, AP did a piece today, 
the Washington Post has done an editorial--as journalists and people 
who are interested in ethics picked this up, this administration, as 
any administration, they will fold. Why put them through the process, 
why pound and pound? I am going to write every Senator on the other 
side, on both sides of the aisle, asking them--they who are not 
encumbered with a Rules Committee--to offer the same amendment.
  Second, we found out in the hearings there were a number of 
prominent, high-level people who had not even filed for their security 
background check.
  Dee Dee Myers, who for a year and 2 months had not even filed the 
form, you could almost say we should have a Dee Dee Myers small 
business amendment, where small businessmen could say, ``I didn't file 
my form because I was too busy.'' You see, Dee Dee said she was too 
busy.
  Members of the Committee on Intelligence told me that when they would 
go down there they would be talking with Dee Dee Myers about Somalia 
and Bosnia and the most secretive things. Yet she had not even filed. 
We found out a large number of them had not filed.
  The other amendment merely says in 30 days you have to file your 
background check with the FBI, your application. Then it has to be 
finished within 6 months. They usually do it much faster than that, but 
we say 6 months. The President has the ability to waive that.
  Back in 1988, serving with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on 
the Helsinki Commission, Congressman Smith and I went into the last 
Gulag in the Soviet Union, Camp 35. When we got in the camp--and this 
is the camp that Scharansky was in--the men found out that we were 
Congressmen. Chris Smith and I said that we were American Congressmen. 
Well, they went on a sit-down strike until they spoke to us.
  We interviewed the man on video camera and found out they had worked 
for the CIA. Later we found out these three men were turned in by 
Aldrich Ames. Aldrich Ames gave the information that put them in the 
Gulag Camp 35. As a result of that, 10 men have been killed.
  Now, I am not inferring that there is anything like that going on in 
the White House, but if my constituents from DIA, CIA, NSC, if your 
people and many people throughout the administration, people who work 
for Boeing, Honeywell, and TRW have to file these forms, I say the 
people in the White House ought to do the same. Because we have been 
foreclosed, I strongly urge the defeat of this rule so they can send it 
back to the Rules Committee and we can offer these amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4539. Voting 
to support this rule will endorse a ``make [their] own rules'' White 
House.
  This is what Mandy Grunwald had to say about potential conflicts that 
might occur from her or other consultants working at the White House 
regularly with the benefit of a White House pass--

       We asked for information from the White House and DNC 
     counsel about laws that governed us . . . we found out there 
     were very few. So we decided to make our own rules.

  We decided to make our own rules.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee in declining to allow me to offer an 
amendment to address this situation decided it was OK for outside 
consultants ``to make [their] own rules.'' I ask you Mr. Speaker, is 
this what we have come to? We are going to have so little oversight of 
the White House under one party rule that those working at the White 
House can just ``make [their] own rules?''
  The Washington Post does not think they should be able to make their 
own rules. They have written in support of my efforts to start this 
process of more White House accountability. The Wall Street Journal 
also has supported this amendment. As they point out in an editorial in 
today's edition:

       As detailed in the [Bob] Woodward book, James Carveille, 
     Paul Begala, Mandy Grunwald, and Stanely Greenberg constantly 
     meet with the President and First Lady, develop policies and 
     market them.

  I might add, as detailed in the Woodward book, these outside 
consultants were constantly at war with many of the President's 
economic advisers and tried to reshape their work on numerous 
occasions. This would be all fine and good and just a part of the 
process if it were not for one thing: The President's economic advisers 
are held accountable--they file financial disclosure, their conflicts 
and possible biases are known; the consultants have not filed financial 
disclosure and their own biases are not known.
  Mr. Woodward reveals that this potential for problems did not go 
unnoticed at the White House and described the reaction of Howard 
Paster, until recently the White House's liaison with Congress:

       It was outrageous that the outside consultants were 
     providing the president with major policy option papers in 
     confidential memos that Paster often never saw or saw only 
     too late. If lobbyists with business clients had this kind of 
     relationship with the president, it would be a giant scandal. 
     The consultants had clients, some businesses, some 
     politicians like Senator Moynihan, who paid big fees for 
     their work. Paster wasn't sure the political consultants were 
     that different from other outside businesses. He 
     resented their influence and was sure they presented 
     Clinton with a potentially serious liability. Valuable 
     inside information and conflicts abounded.''

  Mr. Paster filed a financial disclosure form. So did the economic 
advisers that Carville and company were constantly doing battle with. 
What is wrong with applying the same rules to them as apply to those 
they are working with day after day?
  Unlike other issues where a member can go to an authorizing committee 
to address the matter, this bill is our only vehicle to address 
systemic problems at the White House. There are only approximately 50 
legislative days left this year to address issues. If we do not address 
this problem here and now, it will not be solved. In addition to this 
financial disclosure problem I had also wanted to offer an amendment 
providing for a timely processing of White House passes. As we learned 
earlier this year, after repeated denials from the White House, the 
White House pass process was in disarray. Hundreds of staffers did not 
have permanent passes and many had not even filled out the paperwork to 
begin the background investigation process. Security clearances were 
not even in place for senior officials such as Press Secretary Dee Dee 
Myers. Chief of Staff Mack McLarty did not even get his permanent pass 
until March of this year.
  Despite over 130 instances of legislating on appropriations within 
the fiscal year 1995 Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill, the Rules 
Committee declined to allow me to offer what I believe are very 
important amendments concerning White House accountability.
  As The Wall Street Journal noted today:

       If the Democratic controlled House votes against Mr. Wolf 
     today it will be sending a clear enough message: Ethics laws 
     are meant to be enforced under some occupants of the White 
     House, but it's OK if the Clinton White House merely waves in 
     the general direction of disclosure as its occupants roar 
     past to get on with their ``agenda.''

  The rules in this Congress should not be endorsing the ``make your 
own kind of rules policy at the White House.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chairman Emeritus for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the majority members of the Rules Committee 
expressed frustration that the minority is opposing this rule. True, it 
does allow an open amendment process--something the minority has been 
badgering our Democrat colleagues for repeatedly. But as Mr. Traficant, 
a member of the majority party, so eloquently stated in yesterday's 
Rules Committee meeting on the fiscal year 1995 Treasury/Postal 
appropriations bill--this should not be viewed as an open rule. Why? 
because this rule provides special protection to 138 provisions tucked 
into this bill by the appropriators--provisions that under normal Rules 
of the House would be subject to points of order because they violate 
the standing rules of this House. While it is true that Members could 
offer striking amendments for the line items on that list of protected 
provisions--that is a tougher proposition than knocking them out on a 
point of order. Now, it would only seem fair that if the Rules 
Committee is going to grant special treatment to provisions inserted by 
the members of the Appropriations Committee, then all Members should 
have that same right. And so, as Member after Member came through 
seeking to have the same luxury of rules waivers afforded to their 
amendments as was granted to the appropriations--they were denied. 
Never mind the fact that many of those amendments go straight to the 
heart of real concerns Americans have about the management practices at 
the White House. Members had responsible proposals to prohibit the use 
of taxpayers' funds for nonofficial travel by military aircraft. Who 
could argue with that? We had amendments to require financial 
disclosure for non-governmental employees with White House passes--like 
the political consultants who roam free in the White House today but 
who have no accountability to the people of the United States. But they 
do have conflicts of interest, it seems. Who could argue with that? We 
had an amendment to require disclosure of White House staff salaries, 
which the public pays. Who could argue with that? And we had a proposal 
to require the White House to detail to the public how much it cost and 
who travelled with the President when he took his large entourage of 
nonveterans to Normandy for D-day. Who could argue with that? The list 
goes on, but the point is, amendments proposed by Members who are not 
on the Appropriations Committee, who are not in the majority, and who 
are not powerful committee chairs of Ways and Means or Energy and 
Commerce were judged under a different set of criteria than all the 
rest of the House under this rule and that is why many of us in the 
minority oppose it. This Congress--and that means all 435 Members--is 
charged with oversight duties of the executive branch [including the 
White House]. But with repeated news accounts detailing management 
irregularities, ethical lapses, security breaches, misuse of public 
funds and financial conflicts of interest--the majority leadership in 
this House is growing increasingly squeamish about its legitimate 
oversight responsibility. So today we have a rule that again misses an 
opportunity to respond to public concerns--a rule that appears to 
reinforce the growing notion of a ``cover-up Congress.'' What a shame.

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule because it 
waives all points of order against unauthorized appropriations 
contained in this bill. I object particularly to the funding for four 
unauthorized construction projects totaling over $25 million. The 
projects are courthouses in Albany, GA, Steubenville, OH, Corpus 
Christi, TX, and Providence, RI.
  To the many taxpayers who are listening to the debate, discussion of 
the House rules may seem unimportant. It may sound ``inside the 
Beltway'' stuff.
  In fact, what is at stake here is whether we allow a few powerful 
Members of the House to circumvent rules and spend millions of tax 
dollars on what I would call pork-barrel projects. Now, by pork barrel 
I mean that these spending projects have had no authorizations, no 
hearings, no determination of the need for these projects. That is a 
failure to, simply, follow the basic procedures of the House in regard 
to spending.
  To taxpayers who are outraged that their tax money is wasted on pork-
barrel projects I say, Watch this vote very carefully. A vote for this 
rule is a vote for breaking the rules of the House and in this instance 
allowing $24 million to be spent on what I would call pork.
  The Committee on Public Works and Transportation has not authorized 
these projects. It violates rule XXI. Any Member of this House should 
have been able to strike these projects by simply rising on the floor 
of this House and pointing out that the rules have been violated.
  The Committee on Appropriations is authorizing expenditures for a 
prospectus by GSA on these projects. A prospectus will, in essence, set 
in motion funding for these projects. But the underlying law, the 
Public Buildings Act of 1959, gives this power only to GSA and to the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The Committee on 
Appropriations thus has usurped that power.
  This is a classic case, also, of legislating on an appropriation 
bill, also against the House rules.
  Who wants these five projects built? Not the General Services 
Administration, nor the Committee on Public Works which has the 
statutory authority to request via a prospectus; not the President of 
the United States. In fact, these projects are not included in the 
President's budget.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, since the gentleman [Mr. Fawell] did not have time to yield.
  I want to point out to our colleagues that the gentleman under the 
rule can move to strike any, each, or all of the five projects to which 
he alludes. That is allowed under this rule. I want that to be clear to 
all the Members. Each of the projects about which the gentleman has a 
problem he may offer a motion to strike under this rule.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill contains 
four courthouse projects which have not been authorized by the Public 
Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee and the Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation. The placement of these projects in H.R. 4539 is a 
clear violation of clause 2(a), rule XI, which prohibits unauthorized 
projects from being included in an appropriation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Parliamentarian has read the language in the 
bill concerning these projects and agrees that a point of order would 
be appropriate if this was not waived by this rule.
  In addition, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] pointed out, 
the General Services Administration has not requested funding for these 
projects.

                              {time}  1650

  This is a classic example of legislatively placing the cart before 
the horse. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way the people want us to do 
their business. Anyone who votes for this bill in its present form is 
voting to approve courthouses that no one knows how much they will 
cost. Our subcommittee, which is the primary one of jurisdiction, has 
not requested prospectuses. There have been no hearings. The GSA has 
not given its approval to these buildings.
  People wonder why in the world there is so much waste in Washington. 
There could be no better example than this bill. We are appropriating 
money without knowing the total cost or even how much need there is for 
these buildings. All over this Nation, Mr. Speaker, people are becoming 
angry about Federal courthouses that are costing exorbitant amounts of 
money. The Boston courthouse will cost $285 per square foot, if it 
comes in on budget.
  People wonder why. The reason is that the Congress is passing bills 
that have projects in it that the Members know almost nothing about. We 
need to go over these things with a fine tooth comb, not rush projects 
through that even the people in charge of Federal construction know 
almost nothing about.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4539, despite qualifying language, has the 
practical effect of giving final approval for funding on these projects 
since, once an appropriation is passed by the full House, the sponsor 
and the community involved understandably reach the conclusion that 
their project has received final approval. Reversal of the decision by 
the authorizing committee to proceed with funding as a practical matter 
becomes difficult, if not impossible.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat this rule and maintain the 
integrity of the authorizing process.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, this rule fails to make in order a number 
of important amendments needed to bring about greater accountability in 
the Executive Office of the President. For that reason I must oppose 
the rule and urge its defeat.
  For the past 18 months, as the ranking Republican on the Committee on 
Government Operations, I have seen first-hand the numerous management 
problems at the White House. Let me mention just a few: The White House 
argued that travel office employees were fired for gross mismanagement, 
but the only gross mismanagement was the way the White House handled 
the matter; in an attempt to convince Americans that unanswered phone 
calls and busy signals were not the result of mismanagement, the White 
House spent $27 million on a new phone system. But they violated the 
Competition in Contracting Act by limiting bids for the job; last June, 
the General Accounting Office found that the White House mismanaged the 
purchase of a computer system by failing to follow proper procurement 
procedures; 14 months into the Clinton administration, the White House 
admitted that more than 100 staffers lacked security clearances and 
one-third of the 1,044 employees did not have permanent passes. Talk 
about mismanagement; finally, the White House further mismanaged 
personnel by allowing numerous employees to double-dip, receiving 
double salary payments.
  Even more disquieting than these management shortcomings has been the 
attempt by the administration to cover them up. Time and time again the 
White House has refused to provide information to Congress and to the 
public regarding the operations, expenditures, and management of the 
White House.
  Item: On May 16, the administration refused my request for 
information on air missions flown in support of the White House. 
Incredibly, on May 24, a senior White House aide took a Presidential 
helicopter for a golf outing.
  Item: On October 25, 1993, the White House refused my request for 
information on staffing levels.
  Last December and several times since, the White House refused to 
provide information on the President's health care task force. We have 
since found out that the task force working groups contained 1,000 
participants, not the 511 claimed by the White House. We have also 
found that the task force spent at least $4 million and possibly as 
much as $16 million on expenses, salaries, and consulting fees, not the 
$100,000 identified in its charter.
  Somewhere along the line, this administration has come to believe 
that it is not subject to the rules, laws, and procedures that have 
applied to previous administrations. Security requirements do not 
apply, personnel law does not apply, procurement law does not apply, 
common sense does not apply.
  The amendments my colleagues hoped to offer make clear the fact that 
this administration is subject to the laws of the land, and subject to 
congressional oversight. Without endorsing all of the amendments, I 
applaud the sponsors' efforts to enhance accountability and improve 
White House management. It is disappointing that the Rules Committee 
failed to make these amendments in order. For that reason, I oppose the 
rule and urge its defeat.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I went before the Committee on Rules and offered two 
amendments which were ruled out of order. The first amendment would 
have ended an outrageous practice at the Resolution Trust Corporation.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 3,000 employees at the Resolution Trust 
Corporation out of the 3,000,000 Federal employees. They pay 
themselves, first of all, 10 percent more than other Federal employees. 
But as if that was not enough, they then pay themselves a geographical 
adjuster, which is three, and four, and five times higher than other 
Government employees. The end result is a clerk doing the same job at 
the RTC makes in Washington, DC $4,000 more than a worker at the Energy 
Department, or the Agriculture Department, or other departments of the 
Government. A privileged few, a double standard, and we are not talking 
about a few million dollars here. We are talking about the principle of 
the thing.
  In San Francisco, if one works for the RTC, their income, their 
salary, is adjusted by 31.4 percent because they live in San Francisco, 
and the cost-of-living is more there. But if one works for any other 
Government agency in San Francisco, they only receive an 8 percent cost 
of living increase. Now does it cost 31 percent more to live in San 
Francisco, or does it cost 8 percent more? I do not know, but let us 
end this outrageous practice. Let us treat all Federal employees with 
equity. And let us end this outrageous practice by the RTC.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that I would have an opportunity to 
offer that amendment, and I think we could have all voted for it.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am always happy when we have an 
open rule around this place, and today is one of those glorious days 
when we have an open rule. There is only one little problem, and that 
problem is that they waive points of order for 130-some amendments, as 
I recall. Was it 130-some or 30-some?
  One hundred thirty-five amendments; they waived points of order for 
those.
  And we had an amendment that we thought was very important to the 
American taxpayer. President Clinton went to Normandy, as he should 
have, to express his concern, and support and congratulations for those 
who served our country during the invasion of Europe in 1944. He went 
over there to talk about the great heroism and sacrifice. The only 
problem was he took 30 U.S. aircraft at an average cost of $10,000 an 
hour; that is $300,000 an hour for 20 hours over and back, and that is 
$6 million in aircraft. And he took a thousand of his closest friends, 
a thousand of his closest friends. I do not think the taxpayers of this 
country want to pay for that.
  And they were not veterans. He did not ask any of the veterans 
organizations to send veterans. We talked to veterans who were wounded 
in a hospital in California who said they would have loved to have gone 
to see their fallen comrades, to go to those cemeteries. They were not 
asked, and yet the President took a thousand of his closest friends.
  Mr. Speaker, I am on the oversight committee that is supposed to 
oversee and watch these expenditures of the White House and 
unfortunately, when we called the White House and said our committee 
would like to have this information, they stonewalled it. They said to 
us, ``It's none of your business,'' even though during the Reagan and 
Bush administrations the same request was made, and boxes, and boxes, 
and boxes of information came to our committee.
  This is an administration that is very arrogant as far as the 
Congress is concerned. They do not want to respond to us. They do not 
want to respond to the taxpayers of the United States. They say they 
are for fiscal responsibility, and yet we believe the President spent 
$10 to $15 million of taxpayers' money taking all these people over 
there for a media event when he could have gone in Air Force One and 
done just as well.
  I am very disappointed, but more than that I am disappointed that the 
Committee on Rules would not allow me to propose an amendment which 
would cut the money out of the President's budget that we sent over 
there unless he gave to the Congress as complete manifest of everybody 
that went on that trip so that we would have a full accounting for the 
U.S. taxpayer.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. As so 
many others, my concern is what is not included in this particular 
piece of legislation and what, under this rule, we cannot include.
  As a member of the subcommittee that funds the White House and the 
Executive Office of the President, I have been trying to do a very, 
very simple thing: Find out how much they pay the people who work at 
the White House. They refuse to tell us.

                              {time}  1700

  Those of us who are on the committee in charge of the budget for the 
White House, they will not tell us how much they pay their employees.
  Even though they say they have diminished the number of people who 
work there, they have increased the amount that it costs the taxpayers. 
Why? Because we are told it is a higher caliber of person who deserves 
a higher amount of pay. And yet they will not tell us how much it is.
  If this rule is defeated, we will have the opportunity to include the 
very simple amendment that I have been sponsoring, to require the White 
House to tell us.
  Now, in a couple of days we will have another piece of legislation 
that hopefully will require at least part of these people to have their 
income at taxpayers' expense disclosed. However, that will only cover 
about 400 of the 1,400 people who work at the Executive Office of the 
President. We need full disclosure of all of those.
  Another bit of sunshine that needs to be shed that this rule 
prohibits from occurring is about reimbursement to the taxpayers for 
consultants and other political friends of the President who travel 
with him in what is called an official status when he makes trips that 
they may have political purpose as part of them. We are speaking about 
people such as James Carville, Mandy Grunwald, Paul Begala and others.
  Now, the White House says pursuant to law, if they travel with the 
President, which they do with great frequency, they reimburse the 
taxpayers. Fine. Just tell us who has made the reimbursement and how 
much, so we can check up on it. Oh, no, they say. You cannot know that. 
You have to trust us.
  These are the same people that spent $13,000 of the taxpayers money 
for a helicopter on a golf outing, and they say trust us with 
disclosure on travel. Defeat the rule so we can shed some sunshine on 
what the White House is doing with the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, next week I will be offering 
an amendment to strike $13,129.66 from the White House office account 
to demonstrate the will of the House that the White House release the 
logs and manifests from the Marine helicopter squadron that supports 
the President.
  This is clearly a symbolic amendment. We would have preferred to put 
an amendment in that asks the White House to release this information. 
This is in everybody's best interests, particularly the White House's 
best interests, to get this information out in the public domain. If 
they are telling the truth that there were no other flights of this 
type, they will be hailed for telling that truth. If they are not 
telling the truth, it is to everybody's benefit to get the information 
out now.
  This is longer from November than tomorrow will be. This is not a 
partisan issue. Everybody is interested in good government. We know 
that the amendment is a symbolic amendment, and the money can be put 
back in in conference if the information is released now.
  In case after case, the White House has given the American people a 
Whitewateresque runaround on the release of documents. They have done 
it again in this case. They are not releasing documents. They have 
given misinformation, conflicting information. It does not serve the 
White House well; it does not serve us well. We are held in ever-
decreasing esteem by the American people. We need to do something to 
reinstate confidence in this institution and government in general. Let 
us start here, please, by releasing the data. I would ask everybody's 
support for this very simple, important, symbolic amendment.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], 
the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Fawell], if I can, we have a close working relationship with the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. If the gentleman would 
look at pages 38 and 39, at the four projects to which the gentleman 
refers, not a nickel, other than preparing the prospectus so the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation can consider it, not a 
nickel can be spent on any one of these four projects without the 
approval of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, period. 
That is the same status that a lot of other projects find themselves 
in. Not a nickel can be spent on any one of these four projects 
pursuant to pages 38 and 39 of this bill without the approval of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, as I tried to stress in the time I had, this 
was legislating in an appropriations bill, to even get into the 
authority of the Committee on Appropriations to even order spending to 
commence the prospectus process, when GSA and the committee has never 
asked for that, and they are the only ones under law that have a right 
to ask for it. You are initiating a spending process by authorizing 
through the appropriation law.
  Mr. HOYER. Heavens forbid that the Committee on Appropriations would 
initiate spending. When did the last authorization bill pass the 
Senate? My point is, it has not passed.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I will point out to my friend, last year we 
had a similar understanding and indeed the Committee on Appropriations 
put language in that said none of the money could be spent, subject to 
an authorization. That made a lot of sense. But I understand in 
conference, that language was dropped out.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
incorrect. In fact, those projects had to be approved with discussions 
with our committee and the Senate committee, both committees.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will further yield, staff informed me 
yesterday and today that the language was dropped out in conference and 
there was no requirement that the authorization be approved. So we have 
a disagreement here. I certainly may be wrong, but I am not wrong about 
the fact that this is what staff clearly informed me of.
  Mr. HOYER. We put language in, but that specific language was 
changed, because what we did in the House, which was noncontroversial, 
was to make it subject to approval of the House committee. The Senate 
objected to that and said it ought to be subject to the approval of 
both. The final disposition of this issue was that the construction 
would go forward unless disapproved by the authorizing Committees, of 
either the House or the Senate.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield further, staff tells me 
indeed it was dropped out. There was a change to the law. Is the 
gentleman willing to make the commitment that this year in conference 
the House will insist upon its position?
  Mr. HOYER. We are not going to drop this language. I will commit to 
you.
  Mr. SHUSTER. That is comforting, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I am pleased that I could comfort the gentleman.
  Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to simply 
bring out the fact that for most of the people of this Congress, of 
this House of Representatives, our only opportunity to vote is now. We 
do not know what may happen in the future.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time Mr. Fawell, you will have the 
opportunity. You can move, and you intend to move, to strike these 
projects. It is an open rule. You will have the opportunity to vote, 
and everybody else will have an opportunity to vote.
  Mr. FAWELL. May I just add, we do not have the facts. There has been 
no prospectus, there has been no study. We do not know on the basis of 
what has been done what in the world would justify these four 
courthouses. Now, so we are told to vote in the dark, and then wait and 
hope that some day some few people out there will ultimately make a 
decision that is called an authorization. That is voting in the dark, 
and that is why we have these kinds of over spending that take place.
  The prospectus could have been ordered long ago by the GSA. It could 
have been ordered by the authorizing committee. They saw fit not to do 
so. In fact, OMB turned down one of these courthouses. But there are no 
facts before us at this point to even debate in regard to the merit of 
these courthouses in the appropriations.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman's proposition. The fact is though these projects will be 
subject to, and without which not a nickel can be spent, the 
authorization of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. That 
is our process. I wanted to make that clear to the Members, that these 
projects have to go through the process.

                              {time}  1710

  I am not going to respond to every point that has been made about the 
White House, Mr. Speaker, because i think that would be time-consuming 
and I am not going to take that time. I will take it when this bill 
comes on for consideration in full.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to nip-in-the-bud this issue about these 
planes to Normandy. I am pleased that the gentleman from Indiana is 
here. In 1984 President Reagan went to Normandy from June 1 to 10, 
1984.
  President Clinton went to Normandy June 1 to 8, 1994, not just to 
Normandy but obviously to other places, as did President Reagan.
  President Reagan went to Ireland, London, France, Normandy, London, 
and returned. President Clinton went to Italy, the United Kingdom, 
France, the United Kingdom, and returned, so essentially the trips were 
analogous.
  Mr. Speaker, President Reagan had 43 people on his plane. He traveled 
in a smaller plane. It was before President Bush got the new plane. 
President Clinton had 45 people, two more. Let me reference the two 
additional people. We do not know how many veterans President Reagan 
had on his plane, but we do know that there were two veteran leaders on 
the plane of the President's. There was Mr. Kenneth Bargman, who is an 
Army veteran who enlisted in 1943 and served in the 2d Ranger 
Battalion. He participated in the first wave of the D-day invasion. 
Currently he is a project officer for the World War II 50th Anniversary 
Commemoration, Office of Veterans Affairs.
  There was also Mr. William Hathaway, chairman of the Federal Maritime 
Commission. During World War II Chairman Hathaway served as a navigator 
on a Liberator bomber stationed in Italy with the 376th Bombardment 
Group. He was part of the 15th Air Force and flew 15 missions in 
support of the European offensive, June 2d to 24th, 1944.
  The only point we would make is that, quite obviously, this was a 
trip that President Reagan took and that President Clinton took. Both 
represented our country in the commemoration of a moment in time for 
which our country can be very proud and for which the world can be very 
thankful.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
gentleman taking the time to try to clarify this. The problem that we 
have is that there were 30 aircraft from 6 bases that were refueled at 
Andrews Air Force Base and flew overseas, and we estimate 1,000 people 
went.
  All we have asked from the White House, as the committee of 
jurisdiction that has oversight over the executive branch, is who was 
on those planes, did they reimburse the Federal Government, and if not, 
how much did it cost the Federal Government and the taxpayers for 30 
airplanes, which normally cost $10,000 to $12,000 an hour, to fly over 
there? We have estimated. Some of those planes were only $3,000 or 
$4,000 an hour, and others were $15,000 an hour. We are talking about 
the big transport carriers, the ones that carry the cars and 
everything.
  We are not criticizing the President for going over on Air Force One, 
but he took Air Force One, a backup plane, and 28 other planes, to our 
knowledge.
  We just want a report, as the committee that has oversight 
requirements in this House, we want to know, and we have not been able 
to get it. When we called the White House, they stonewalled us and said 
simply, ``We do not think you are entitled to that information.''
  As far as veterans' groups are concerned, we called the American 
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans, 
all of them, and they were asked to attend, but none were asked to go 
over there and be with the President. The six men we talked about that 
were in a hospital in California, those six people were indigent. They 
would love to have gone, and they were not asked, as many others were 
not.
  While the gentleman is trying to explain----
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, how many such persons 
were there in that situation when President Reagan went in 1984? I am 
sure the gentleman checked.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he 
did not take 30 planes, he took two.
  Mr. HOYER. How does the gentleman know? He took Air Force One and Air 
Force Two; that is correct.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is two.
  Mr. HOYER. And additional planes to carry equipment, his car, and 
other items. If the gentleman's information is that he only took two 
planes, he is incorrect.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman might yield further, that is 
standard, and the gentleman knows that, but 30 aircraft, 30 U.S. 
aircraft?
  Mr. HOYER. I do not know that to be the case. We are going to find 
that out. However, we do not have the information, by the way, as to 
how many planes President Reagan took.
  Reclaiming my time Mr. Speaker, and in closing, I urge Members to 
vote for this. It is a rule exactly like we passed last year, almost 
verbatim. There is a difference. There is going to be a vote on this 
one. It was so noncontroversial last year, there was no vote on this 
rule. It was almost exactly like this one. It contained the same 
waivers for all these provisions that have been in this bill.
  There are 21 new ones, by the way. All those the gentleman 
referenced, we voted on over and over again in this bill. Some were put 
in by Republicans, some were put in by Democrats, some were put in by 
the Reagan or Bush administration. I am not sure the Clinton 
administration has put any in.
  My point is this: The rule is no different. It is an open rule. 
Members can strike anything in the bill. They can strike any number in 
the bill. I brought an open rule last year, and this is an open rule 
this year. I believe this is a fair rule.

  I further want to say, Mr. Speaker, to my friends on both sides of 
the aisle, the issue is clear as to why this rule is controversial. 
From 1981 to 1993, including 1984, when President Reagan went over 
there, no Democrat asked for language in the bill to try to embarrass 
the White House
  There are seven pages of GAO's report of John Sununu's trips to the 
dentist, seven pages on the GAO report. We did not ask for language.
  Did we criticize it? We did. Did we write letters? We did. Did we 
debate it on the floor? We did. However, we did not try to involve 
ourselves in putting language in the bill or report for the White 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, going into a lot of the other dates, from 1981 to 1993, 
not one provision did the Democrats on this side of the aisle offer for 
the Reagan or Bush administrations for the White House Office. As a 
matter of fact, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] probably 
knows, I many times rose to the floor and said that the White House 
ought not to be mired in legislative second-guessing.
  That was my position when Reagan was President and when Bush was 
President. I hope that I do not serve under another Republican 
President, but if I do, I will guarantee that I will continue that 
position.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman will. Will the gentleman 
continue to yield for 1 additional second, because I want to commend 
the gentleman?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I do commend 
the gentleman. I remember him standing tall on this side of the aisle. 
I think he is one of the finer Members on this side of the aisle, and 
maybe in the Chamber.
  I think the President should have gone, and we all think he should 
have gone. He should have gone and shown respect, as he did. He should 
have gone and taken Air Force One and possibly Air Force Two, but there 
were 30 airplanes there. We think we deserve an explanation, and so do 
the taxpayers. We are going to check on that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Darden). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote no on the rule. I think 
what we have here is some revisionist history. I do remember the 
Democrats offering an amendment to strike the Competitiveness Council, 
designed specifically to embarrass the White House, so the fact is that 
that kind of thing did take place under Democrats.
  The thing that has changed here between last year and this year, we 
as Republicans now know that this White House is going to stall us and 
try to keep us from getting information that legitimately should be in 
the hands of the American people about operations in the White House.
  The only time we have a chance to bring up that issue is on this 
bill. The fact is, on occasion after occasion, ranking members of the 
House of Representatives on the Republican side have asked for 
legitimate material from this White House and have been told time and 
time again, ``No, you cannot have it.'' We lack subpoena power, so we 
cannot go and do what Democrats have traditionally done, ask for the 
information under subpoena, and Democrats are not cooperating with us 
in order to do it.
  Let me make another point. under the rules of the House on these open 
rules, the Democrats also have rules that prevent us from adding none 
of these funds, because we now have a motion to rise that would stop 
some of the abuses that we have found time after time on the part of 
the White House. We think that this is the occasion when we should have 
an opportunity to look at those White House abuses and put things in 
this bill to stop what is going on down there.
  The White House abuse has become a national scandal. That scandal 
ought to be addressed in this Congress. it is obvious it is not going 
to be addressed through the legitimate channels, so therefore this is 
the bill where we have a chance to raise the issues. That is what we 
are attempting to do, and we are now being blocked by a Committee on 
Rules that will not permit it to happen.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a few things, if I may. I 
want to be very clear I am very serious. This vote, in this gentleman's 
opinion, is a test of the good faith on the part of our colleagues 
across the aisle, because in fact there is no legitimate reason to vote 
against this rule. It is an open rule.
  We have been asked on many occasions by our friends, and I think 
quite properly so, to offer open rules. We thought, quite frankly, 
coming into the Committee on Rules yesterday, that our colleagues from 
across the aisle would be happy with this rule.

                              {time}  1720

  We were surprised when they were not. They now apparently for the 
first time--at least this gentleman has heard from our friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], that the demand is for an open 
rule, plus. This is something new. It is not in the rules, but I guess 
we will be discussing this in the future. But is not something that 
ever had been asked for or discussed before.
  Yesterday the distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and he is a distinguished gentleman, 
testified in the Committee on Rules. If I may, let me quote him:
  ``As you know, there are also numerous agencies in the bill which are 
not authorized under current law and that necessitates a rule 
protecting those sections of the bill against points of order. While I 
do not ordinarily support waiving points of order, in this case I 
support a rule doing so. Not doing so could create an unwieldy 
situation on the floor and place the House in a difficult situation in 
conference as was the case a few years ago. Therefore, I appreciate and 
support the chairman's,'' that is, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Hoyer's, ``request for an open rule.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will my good friend yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Not at the moment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman really should.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Not at the moment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will do so later, I will wait.
  Mr. BEILENSON. This gentleman has not spoken much on this, although 
he has been tempted to on other occasions.
  Mr. Speaker, why is not the gentleman on his side of the aisle? It is 
good to have you over here, Jerry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I did not realize I was over here. I was drawn to what 
the gentleman was saying.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, may I finish?
  Mr. SOLOMON. We have been admonished for reading from the committee's 
testimony. I just wondered why the gentleman was doing it. The 
gentleman is welcome to do it, but let us be consistent.
  Mr. BEILENSON. This Member has never admonished the gentleman for 
doing such. I thought it might be useful to the other Members to know 
what the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot], said yesterday.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being on this side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me briefly?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Of course. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] told me he was going over there so the 
gentleman could get used to being a member of the majority.
  Mr. BEILENSON. May the gentleman from California continue?
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], however, and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and others today and later 
yesterday complained that certain amendments were not allowed. Why were 
those amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules which 
have been spoken about at length today not allowed under the rule?
  As I said in my statement originally and again a moment or two ago, 
this is an open rule. Any amendment that does not violate the rules of 
the House is in order under this rule. The amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules with two exceptions, the amendment submitted 
yesterday all violated points of order and would not be in order under 
an open rule.
  There were two of them that could be, that do not violate the rules 
of the House and that in fact could be offered here today.
  As we have pointed out time and again, the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Fawell's concern over those 4 or 5 projects, was arrived at by 
offering motions to strike.
  It has also been said by my good friend, the gentleman from upstate 
New York [Mr. Solomon] and a couple of others that there are 135, give 
or take a few, legislative amendments on this bill and that special 
treatment was given, therefore, to Members of the Committee on 
Appropriations which is not fair to other non-appropriations Members in 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I want Members to understand what we are talking about 
here, what those 135 so-called amendments are. Most of them are 
provisions that have been in place for years and that simply allow 
agencies to continue past operations. We believe that only 21 
provisions of the 135 are new, that have been proposed by the committee 
and could be considered in any way as real legislative amendments. Most 
of those 21 make very minor or technical changes in the law. The eight 
that are more significant are as follows, just so Members know what the 
complaints are about and what we protected so Members do not think that 
members of the Committee on Appropriations have some special privilege 
of sneaking their own individual amendments into this bill.
  One would allow for both white collar and blue collar pay raises. The 
second would require a report on Internal Revenue Service tax system 
modernization. The third would require a report from the drug czar. A 
fourth would make funds available for construction projects not 
authorized by law. The fifth would require new courthouse projects to 
meet certain standards. The sixth would allow agencies to finance 
recycling through the sale of recycled materials. The seventh would 
provide leave for Federal employees donating bone marrow or organs. The 
eighth would require reductions in staff when implementing buyout 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the eight major ones and not all those are 
major, of the 21 new. The vast majority of the 135 that people keep 
alluding to fall into 2 other categories:
  One, agencies without authorization, which the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Lightfoot] quite properly alluded to, and the second are so-called 
good government provisions.
  The agencies without authorization which need to be protected under 
the bill and which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] was urging 
protection for yesterday are the Mint, Customs, drug czar, Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center, National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission, the Federal Elections Commission, Merit Systems 
Protection Board, Office of Government Ethics, and Administrative 
Conference of the United States.
  Finally, the so-called good government provisions which would permit 
agencies to use funds to operate and maintain buildings, purchase 
improvements, automobiles, equipment, and provide awards; require 
reports on controversial spending items; and, allow transfers among 
accounts. Those are the 135.
  Mr. Speaker, to the best of the Committee on Rules' knowledge, no one 
had any problems with any of them. None of the testimony yesterday 
before our committee spoke to any of them. All of the testimony that we 
had and which has been alluded to and repeated today has been on behalf 
of amendments which violated the rules and, therefore, were not made in 
order. We made in order no proposed amendments that violated the rules. 
We are offering instead as we thought our good friends on the other 
side wanted and have been asking for and too often they are right and 
we have not sometimes in the past been so fair about these rules as we 
ought to have been. We are trying now to be more fair. We have proposed 
here an open rule. Why is it that our good friends over there do not 
accept that in good faith and support our efforts?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], I know the gentleman is sincere.
  Mr. BEILENSON. I am more than sincere. I am correct about that, I 
would say to my good friend.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows under the rules of the 
House and under the leadership of our very good and respected chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 
Natcher, the gentleman always insisted that these appropriation bills 
be brought directly to the floor, not to our Committee on Rules, and he 
was adamant about it. If that were the case, we would not be trying to 
offer any amendments that are in the form of legislating in an 
appropriations bill. the reason we asked to have amendments made in 
order upstairs is because there are 135 instances when the Committee on 
Appropriations is legislating.
  Let me just give the gentleman two here because these are the two I 
questioned, and there are 135 of them.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I just described what the 135 were. Was 
the gentleman not listening?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman did not describe this one.
  The committee has included this new provision which provides that 
certain pay increases will go into effect. I do not know what pay 
increases there are.
  Number 34 says the committee has continued language which provides 
funds for operation and maintenance of the White House for official 
entertainment expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, that is legislating in an appropriations bill. We want 
the same opportunity, to offer my amendment which says that we want to 
make sure that the drug testing is continued in the White House. I am 
denied my amendment, yet the committee stuck all these others in there. 
That is all. We wanted fairness.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, the portion of the legislation to which 
the gentleman alludes may be struck by an amendment by the gentleman or 
anyone else. If this bill were on the floor according to the way the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher], God bless him, used to bring 
bills here, the amendments which the gentleman is asking for would not 
be in order on the floor.
  If the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] were carrying this bill 
without having gone to the Committee on Rules, none of these amendments 
the gentleman and his friends have been asking for would be in order on 
the floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we were asking to waive certain points of 
order and the gentleman knows that.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. In regard to characterizing my comments I made 
yesterday, I believe the issues we talked about, there has been pretty 
much general agreement that this is what we wanted to do in order to 
make sure the bill flowed smoothly.
  The point I did make yesterday that the gentleman did not reference 
to and that I made today was that we were asking for, I believe it is, 
clause 21, paragraph 2, whatever that is. I am not a lawyer so I am not 
up on all the fancy phrasing. The bottom line, we were simply asking 
for waiving those points of order so that Members on this side could 
offer some amendments that they wanted to offer as it related to the 
White House situation. We knew they would be ruled out of order because 
they would be authorizing on an appropriations package. That was what 
we asked for and were denied. That is the only point I was trying to 
make.
  Mr. BEILENSON. I understand and I appreciate the gentleman speaking.
  Mr. Speaker, I tried to make clear in alluding to the gentleman's 
testimony yesterday that he was speaking on the point that he just made 
quite properly.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I remind my colleagues, if it is at all 
necessary, that this is an open rule. To repeat, the waivers in the 
rule are there to protect agencies that are without authorization which 
I believe our friends in the minority would mostly fully support, and 
for general provisions, the great majority of which have been carried 
in previous bills, some of them for a good many years. While those 
provisions are protected against the point of order, they are still 
subject to the motion to strike by any of our colleagues who wish to do 
so and who may oppose them.

                              {time}  1730

  Providing an open rule, the Committee on Rules chose to follow 
regular procedures for consideration of the bill. Objections, as the 
colleagues have heard, to this open rule are based on the desire to 
have amendments made in order that would either constitute legislating 
on an appropriation bill or are not germane to the bill's provisions 
and, therefore, violate the rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, a fair rule. It is, in fact, an open 
rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  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. Darden). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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 236, 
nays 177, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               YEAS--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     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
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     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
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     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
     Cox
     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
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     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
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Collins (MI)
     Foglietta
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Huffington
     Jefferson
     Kopetski
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Owens
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Royce
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Towns
     Tucker
     Washington
     Weldon
     Whitten

                              {time}  1752

  Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. McDERMOTT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________