[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4600, EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 
                                  1994

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 467 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 467

       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. 4600) to amend the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited 
     consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget 
     authority. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour, with thirty minutes to be equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Rules and thirty minutes to be equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Government Operations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. 
     No amendment shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
     report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against the amendments printed in the 
     report are waived. At the conclusion of consider ation 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 with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 seconds to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. 
Solomon], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All 
time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 467 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 4600, the Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994. The 
resolution allows up to 1 hour of general debate, 30 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Rules, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Government Operations.
  The resolution provides that after general debate the bill will be 
considered as read, and makes in order only those amendments printed in 
House Report 103-565 accompanying the resolution, to be considered in 
the order and manner specified in that report.
  The amendments in the report are: First, a technical amendment 
offered by Representative Spratt or Derrick or a designee, debatable 
for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
opponent; second, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Stenholm or a designee, debatable for 30 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent; and 
third, an amendment offered by Representative Solomon or his designee 
as a substitute for the Stenholm amendment, also debatable for 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
  The amendments are not subject to amendment or to a demand for a 
division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole, 
and all points of order against the amendments are waived.
  Finally, the resolution provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, shortly after taking office President Clinton outlined 
his plan to restore the American dream for us and our children.
  The President's economic and deficit-reduction plan called for 
drastic change from the status quo. The President rejected the policies 
and practices of the past which quadrupled our debt in 12 years and 
left many Americans believing their Government doesn't work.
  Today, nearly 17 months after the President offered his economic 
plan, and 11 months after its enactment by Congress, things have 
changed dramatically for the better. Our economy is strong. Employment 
is up. Unemployment is down. Confidence is up. Wages are up. Industrial 
production is up. Housing starts are up. Inflation remains low.
  Mr. Speaker, most relevant to the measure I being to the House today, 
the Federal budget deficit is down--way down. The entitlement cuts, 
revenue increases and 5-year freeze on discretionary spending enacted 
last year have slashed a deficit that topped $290 billion in fiscal 
1992 down to a projected $200 billion or less this year, according to 
private economists and the Congressional Budget Office.
  For the first time since the administration of Harry Truman, America 
is on the verge of enjoying 3 consecutive years of declining budget 
deficits. That is no mean feat, and it comes thanks to the tough 
medicine administered to the budget by the President and the Democrats 
in this Congress.
  Although the deficit is falling and indications are that it will 
continue to fall in coming years, Americans clearly want us to take 
additional deficit-reduction action. This is why we are here today.
  The legislation made in order by this rule would give the President 
one of the key deficit-reduction tools he sought last year, and which I 
believe we desperately need: A modified line-item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, wasteful spending sometimes occurs because individual 
items escape scrutiny by being submerged in large appropriations bills.
  Under current procedures a President cannot strike out individual 
items in appropriations bills. He must sign or veto the whole bill, 
whatever the consequences. H.R. 4600 would give the President an option 
he does not now have.
  Under H.R. 4600, within 3 days of signing an appropriations bill the 
President could send the House a message and bill proposing to rescind, 
or cancel, individual spending items in that bill.
  The President's proposal would be referred to the Appropriations 
Committee. That committee would have to report it to the floor without 
amendment within 7 days. The House would have to vote, up or down, on 
the President's bill within 10 days, and during this time the funds 
could not be spent. If the bill passed the House, it would go to the 
Senate for expedited consideration there, and if passed by the Senate, 
on to the President for his signature.
  To avoid the chance a President might use this process not to reduce 
the deficit, but instead to promote his own pet projects, H.R. 4600 
would allow the House Appropriations Committee to report to the House, 
simultaneously with the President's bill, an alternative. To qualify 
for expedited consideration, the committee's bill must propose to 
cancel spending from the same appropriations act the President drew his 
rescissions from, and it must propose to cancel an amount of spending 
equal to or exceeding the President's total.
  If the committee reported an alternative, the House would first vote 
on the President's bill; if adopted by majority vote, the President's 
bill would go to the Senate for expedited consideration and the 
alternative would not be in order. If the House rejected the 
President's bill and passed the alternative, that bill would go to the 
Senate instead.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee could also report an alternative 
bill. But it would not be in order to consider anything but the 
President's bill until the Senate first voted on and rejected the 
President's bill. The President is thus guaranteed a vote on his 
proposal.
  If both Houses ultimately passed an alternative bill, then those 
funds would be canceled. Thus, under H.R. 4600, if either the 
President's bill or an alternative bill passed both Houses, spending 
will be cut and the American taxpayer would be the winner.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4600 is identical to a bill the House passed last 
year, H.R. 1578. That bill reposes in the two Senate committees to 
which it was referred over a year ago. We hope that the House passing 
another such bill will encourage friendly Senators to overcome powerful 
opposition in that body and pass this important deficit-reduction 
measure promptly.
  Mr. Speaker, the President supports H.R. 4600. he believes with a 
modified line-item veto millions and maybe even billions of dollars 
might be saved. These are dollars which taxpayers sent to Washington to 
finance essential government activities, not to be squandered on low-
priority projects which may lack broad support.
  Quite simply, H.R. 4600 will create accountability. No longer will a 
President be able to sign an appropriations act containing wasteful 
items and claim he was powerless to block them.
  No longer will Congress be able to force upon the President the 
dilemma of vetoing an entire act and shutting down the Government, or 
signing the whole thing, pork and all.
  If Congress wants to indulge in pork-barrel spending, then a majority 
of either House need only stand up and be counted. If the President 
does not want to sign pork into law, then he has the responsibility to 
send it back. It is that simple. I believe it will work and it deserves 
our strong support.
  The rule also deserves our strong support. In addition to a technical 
amendment by Representative Spratt or myself, the rule makes in order a 
substitute for the bill by Representative Stenholm and a substitute for 
the Stenholm amendment by Representative Solomon. The rule protects the 
minority's prerogative to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. 
I urge all Members to support the rule and the bill.

                                   1410

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we are often told around here that there is 
too little time to do this or that; or that we must have restrictive 
rules because the session is drawing to a close.
  But today we are being told something quite different, even though 
there are less than 40 legislative days left in this session. We are 
being told that we have enough time to consider a bill that is 
identical to one we passed just last year and that is still pending 
over in the other body.
  And the reason we are doing this, according to the Rules Committee 
majority report, is that we want to impress on the Senate how important 
we think this issue, and action on it, is.
  The average taxpayer might think it would have been cheaper and less 
time-consuming to have the Speaker send a strongly worded letter to the 
Senate majority leader asking them to take up and pass our first bill. 
But then, that would be too easy; it makes too much common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, the real reason we are here again today on the same bill 
is that the majority leader announced a couple of weeks ago that the 
House will consider a variety of budget process reforms as an 
alternative to the A to Z real spending cut plan. That's how it was 
announced.
  Instead of A to Z real spending cuts, we are going to have C-Y-A 
process reforms. We will give you this transparent fig leaf to hide 
behind and hope nobody notices you are not really cutting spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand the reluctance of the Democratic 
leadership to enter into an open amendment process to cut spending and 
instead agree to almost anything else to keep Members off of the A to Z 
Discharge Petition No. 16, although I am a supporter of A to Z. But I 
don't understand the need to recycle old bills that are still pending 
in the other body.
  However, we have decided to make the most out of this baffling 
situation by giving Members a chance to vote on two things they and the 
American people really want.
  And believe me, my constituents in upstate New York and your 
constituents across this great Nation are not clamoring out there for 
something called expedited rescissions.
  What the people really want is to give the President line-item veto 
authority to cut wasteful spending--something candidate Clinton said he 
was for during the 1992 campaign. It's something that 43 Governors 
already have. And it's something many of you pledged to support back in 
your last campaign. Now's your chance.
  This rule will give Members an opportunity to vote on a real line-
item veto in the Solomon-Castle-Cooper-Quinn-Blute substitute that will 
ultimately require a two-thirds vote to override the President's 
spending cuts and his repeal of special interest tax breaks.
  The other thing the American people really want is for this Congress 
to reform itself--to change it's way of doing things, make the laws it 
passes applicable to itself, and become a more representative, 
responsive and open body.
  Unfortunately, that's something this rule does not now provide for. 
But we will give you a chance to change that by voting down the 
previous question and supporting an amendment to the rule making in 
order the joint committee's congressional reform bill under an open 
amendment process.
  That bill has been stalled up in the Rules Committee for 5 months now 
with only hearings and no action. The time has come to act.
  Our colleague, Mr. Dreier, has an amendment that will allow you to 
consider that bill as a further amendment to the expedited rescission 
bill, and to offer amendments to it. So vote ``no'' on the previous 
question if you want real reform of this Congress.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we can still reform this Congress by 
voting down the previous question and making in order a bipartisan 
reform bill under an open rule. And we can still turn this sow's ear 
into a pork-buster by voting for the true line item veto embodied in 
the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the edification of Members the following 
documents:

  Motion and Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Markup of H.R. 
        4600, Expedited Rescissions Act, Thursday, June 23, 1994

       1. Dreier Motion to Table and Substitute--Motion to table 
     H.R. 4600 and consider and report instead H.R. 3801, the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994. Motion ruled not in 
     order by Chair.
       2. Drier Motion to Table Bill--Motion to table H.R. 4600. 
     Rejected: 3-5. Yeas: Solomon, Quillen and Dreier. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Gordon and Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Wheat and Goss.
       3. Solomon Substitute--Motion to substitute text of H.R. 
     493 as introduced by Rep. Michel, a legislative line-item 
     veto for appropriations and targeted tax benefit. Rejected: 
     3-5 Yeas: Solomon, Quillen and Dreier. Nays: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Frost, Gordon and Slaughter, Not Voting: Beilenson, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat and Goss.
       4. Derrick Motion to Report--Motion to favorably report the 
     bill to the House with the recommendation that it pass. 
     Adopted: 5-3. yeas: Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Gordon and 
     Slaughter. Nays: Solomon, Quillen and Dreier. Not Voting: 
     Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, and Goss.
                                  ____


 Votes in the Committee on Rules to Motions on the Rule for H.R. 4600, 
    ``The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994'' Tuesday, June 28, 1994

       1. Hamilton or Dreier Amendment to Bill--Motion to make in 
     order an amendment to be offered by Rep. Hamilton or Mr. 
     Dreier, or their designees, that would be made in order at 
     the end of the bill, consisting of three new titles which are 
     the text of H.R. 3801, the ``Legislative Reorganization Act 
     of 1994.'' The amendment would be considered as base text for 
     the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rules, 
     i.e., under an open amendment process. Rejected: 4-5. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Bonior, and Gordon. Not Voting: Frost, Hall, Wheat 
     and Slaughter.
       2. Michel Amendment to Base Bill--Motion to make in order 
     an amendment by Rep. Michel, or a designee, to the base bill, 
     providing for presidential authority to repeal targeted tax 
     provisions subject to the same approval process as H.R. 4600. 
     The amendment would not subject to amendment but debatable 
     for 30-minutes equally divided between the proponent and an 
     opponent, and waiving all points of order. Rejected: 4-5. 
     Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, and Gordon. Not Voting: Frost, 
     Hall, Wheat and Slaughter.

                                  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).............................................           75      17         23       58         77 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 July 12, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch 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.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                                                             
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  ..........................  .................................
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti-Redlining in   N/A.............  ..........................  .................................
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Long].
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong 
support of the Stenholm Penny-Kasich substitute to the bill.
  Last year, the House approved enhanced recission authority for the 
President. Unfortunately, that legislation never went further. The 
Stenholm-Penny--Kasich substitute, made in order under this rule, is a 
bipartisan compromise that streamlines the process, allows the 
President to designate recission savings for deficit reduction, and 
makes the President and the Congress more accountable regarding 
questionable spending items and tax provisions.
  This Congress has shown itself to be committed to reducing the 
deficit. Tough choices were made to bring the Federal deficit down to 
the $220 billion projected for this fiscal year. It is not enough, 
however. If we are serious about reducing spending and eventually 
balancing the budget the Stenholm, Penny, Kasich approach is the 
strongest and most reasonable vehicle for cutting waste out of our 
annual appropriations process.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute when it comes up for a 
vote.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier] a member of our Committee on 
rules, but also the vice chairman of the congressional reform committee 
that you and I had the privilege of serving on with him.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the 
Committee on rules, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to say what a great addition he was to the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, with this rule, the House leadership is attempting to 
bring to the floor a regurgitated, enhanced rescission bill that 
already passed the House last year and has virtually no chance of being 
considered by the other body.
  If our colleagues are serious about enacting an enhanced rescission 
package, one that can be passed by both Chambers and signed by the 
President, it must be done as part of a broader reform package. This is 
why I am going to urge, as my friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, 
NY, has said, our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment to 
the rule that would provide for the consideration of a further 
amendment at the end of H.R. 4600 relating to the issue of 
congressional reform.
  With a very few legislative days remaining in this session of the 
103d Congress, defeating the previous question provides one of the best 
opportunities to bring about real congressional reforms this year to 
the budget process as well as reforms to an antiquated committee 
system, legislative procedures, administration of the House, and 
legislative branch personnel.
  In contrast, separating budget reform from the broader congressional 
reform package is a tactic designed to kill an enhanced rescission 
bill, and it substantially diminishes the prospect for any meaningful 
congressional reform this year.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to delay the issue of congressional 
reform. The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress held 36 
hearings and 4 days of markup last year. The Committee on Rules has 
completed its hearings, and the Committee on House Administration has 
also held several hearings.
  As my good friend and counterpart, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], said in a June 30 letter to the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], ``This is a 
meaningful package that will allow Members to claim credibly they have 
taken serious steps to enhance the effectiveness and institutional 
integrity of Congress.''
  We cannot make that same claim, Mr. Speaker, about H.R. 4600, the 
enhanced rescission bill.
  I urge my colleagues to move the process of congressional reform 
along. Join the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and me by 
attempting to defeat the previous question so that we can keep the 
process of reform, which the American people and I believe a majority 
of this Congress wants to have, going.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House 
Resolution 467, the rule before us today which allows for the 
consideration of H.R. 4600, the Expedited Rescissions Act.
  Let me extend high praise to the Rules Committee and our leadership 
for the rule that has been reported on this bill. Although I am a 
Member who occasionally must rise in opposition to rules which I feel 
do not allow a proper airing of major issues relevant to a bill, I also 
want to be quick to express my appreciation for rules which meet a 
fairness test. This rule does.
  Let me also commend John Spratt and Butler Derrick for introducing 
H.R. 4600 so that we can once again focus attention on this issue. I 
supported this legislation when it was passed by the House last year, 
and continue to believe that it will make a significant step forward in 
the accountability of the budget process.
  That notwithstanding, I believe there are several areas in which this 
legislation can be improved. It was in this spirit that Tim Penny, John 
Kasich, and I developed the expedited rescissions title to H.R. 4434, 
the Common Cents Budget Reform Act. Our amendment is similar to H.R. 
4600, but includes several differences which will substantially 
strengthen the legislation. I will elaborate on those differences later 
in this debate, but at this point I would like to focus specifically on 
the rule.
  There are a number of Members who believe that we should grant the 
President line item veto authority, that is to say, the ability to 
eliminate spending items with the support of one-third plus one of 
either the House or the Senate. That opinion will be ably represented 
today by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Minority Leader 
Michel and Representative Solomon.
  While I disagree with that approach, I believe it is perfectly 
reasonable for any Member to think otherwise and I feel this body 
should express its will on the proper approach to take on this issue. 
That is also why I went to the Rules Committee asking that the Michel-
Solomon amendment be made in order.
  Furthermore, that is why I did not object to the structure of this 
current rule, even though the structure means that if Michel-Solomon 
passes, the language of my amendment will not even be voted on. Members 
should not come to the floor expecting to be able to vote for every 
amendment offered in order that the last one might prevail. This is not 
a king-of-the-hill rule. It is not a closed rule. It is more like a 
single elimination rule which, if biased in any way, is biased toward 
the initial amendment, the Michel-Solomon amendment. I did not object 
to this bias; in fact I argued for it with Rules Committee members. And 
I say right now to my colleague, the gentleman from New York, ``if your 
amendment passes, I will support it on final passage,'' because it 
definitely strengthens the will of the House regarding this particular 
issue.
  Again, I commend the Rules Committee for bringing to us today this 
rule. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and, later in the day, 
I hope they will support the Stenholm-Penny-Kasich amendment as being 
the most serious approach which can muster majority support.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Bellevue, WA [Ms. Dunn], another valuable Member of this House, a 
freshman Member, and a member of the congressional reform task force 
that you and I served on, and who has been so valuable in trying to 
bring about reforms in this House.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to do the right 
thing: Defeat the previous question so that we can bring real 
congressional reform to the House floor without any more of the 
dilatory tactics that have been deployed thus far.
  This rule represents a clear effort to approach reform in a piecemeal 
manner, rather than consider a comprehensive package. As most Members 
are aware, the esteemed House chairman of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, Mr. Hamilton of Indiana, has called for 
rejection of the piecemeal approach so that the House may consider a 
comprehensive package of reforms.
  And make no mistake, this rule today is the first step toward 
piecemeal and minimalist reforms. The Expedited Recission Act to which 
this rule applies was only one of the hundreds of reforms considered by 
the Joint Committee. So, regardless of any rationalizations, Mr. 
Speaker, it is clear that this effort today splinters the reform 
effort.
  Is watered down reform what the taxpayers desire? No. In 1992, 
exasperated taxpayers sent a clear signal for institutional reform. The 
Congress responded with formation of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress. Then voters sent a huge new class of freshmen 
to Congress to institute wide-ranging reforms. The Joint Committee, on 
which I was privileged to be the only freshman, built a hearing record 
of unprecedented proportions.
  Now, the fix is in. Slow down, water down, limit the reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, taxpayers want bold reform. This vote today is our 
chance to give it to them.
  Let us defeat the previous question; let us consider a reform package 
under an open rule; let us do the right thing.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard], another valuable Member of this House who has 
served on the joint committee to reform the House with you and me.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question because we need to have real reform come before the 
House. This rescission bill passed the House last year, then the Senate 
defeated a similar rescission bill. I believe its fate will be the same 
again.
  The Senate insists on true reform, why should we settle for anything 
less in this body?
  If the Members of this House are ready to discuss serious reform, 
they need to reject weak efforts such as this and focus on substantial 
issues. I believe that the best place for us to begin our journey 
toward actual reform is exactly where the Senate has, with the 
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of 
Congress, as specified in H.R. 3801.
  Not only does this include budgetary reform but also committee 
structure, congressional compliance, proxy voting, and administrative 
reforms. Why should the House waste time on minor, shallow changes when 
there is a comprehensive reform package ready now?
  We know Members from both parties are in favor of it; our colleagues 
in the other Chamber want it, and our constituents demand it. It is 
time for the rhetoric to stop and for the Congress to act.
  Again I urge vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have 
a chance to consider real congressional reform and, hopefully, with an 
open rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have just one Member left to speak at 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will just recall to the membership what happened in January 1993 
when this 103d Congress convened. At that time over 100 new Members, 
who now have reached, I think, 112 or 113----
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, it is 117.
  Mr. SOLOMON. There are 117 new Members to this House. Almost every 
one of these Members on both sides of the aisle, both Democrats and 
Republicans, came here having been elected on a platform to try to fix 
what is wrong with this House. Gridlock and other problems have reduced 
the House to the lowest level of respect, according to the polls, at 
any time in the history of the United States.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the vice chairman of the joint committee 
which was formed after a meeting in the office of the Speaker. Both the 
Republican and the Democratic leadership set up a committee that would 
bring about true reform in this House.
  I yield to the vice chairman of that committee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to follow on in a statement the gentleman made in his 
opening remarks; that here we are dealing with an issue that this House 
has already voted on, the issue of the rescission. Once again we are 
facing that issue and it is a priority item, very important for us to 
proceed with. Yet we are too busy to deal with the issue of 
congressional reform. That is what we continue to hear from this 
leadership. My friend said that in his opening remarks. It seems to me 
to be a real tragedy that as we go through a question we have already 
resolved, that now we are doing this. My friend is absolutely right; 
the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress was established 
in the wake of the post office and the House bank and restaurant 
problems that we have had here, and it was virtually unanimous--that 
is, the establishment of this committee--and during calendar year 1993 
this committee put together the largest compilation of information on 
this institution, both the House and the Senate, that has ever been 
gleaned. And what a tragedy that as we look at all the work that was 
done we are talking about breaking it into bits without really moving 
forward with congressional reform as was promised last year. 
Unfortunately, we were in a position where they have said that, ``Yes, 
we want to do it,'' but they only want to look at the issue of 
congressional compliance.
  This issue of budget reform is a very important aspect of 
congressional reform, entitlement review; all of these items are 
encompassed in H.R. 3801, legislation which has been reported out.
  We have had hearing after hearing in our subcommittee on rules of the 
House, and we have had hearings in the Administration Committee. It is 
a real tragedy that the American people and, I believe, a majority of 
the membership of this institution who want to see congressional reform 
proceed, are being blocked by these attempts by the leadership to do 
that.
  You know, when you look at the work that my friend, Mr. Spratt, and 
Mr. Swift and Mr. Solomon and so many of the rest of us put into it in 
calendar year 1993, 243 witnesses came before our committee, 37 
hearings. It was the first bicameral, bipartisan effort in nearly half 
a century. Not since the Monroney-LaFollette reform came forward in 
1947 have we seen the kind of effort that we have seen with this Joint 
Committee on the Reorganization of Congress. It is a travesty that it 
is being treated in the way that it has. That is the reason that I am 
insisting on defeat of the previous question so that we can make in 
order H.R. 3801. I am not a strong proponent of H.R. 3801; I think 
there are many modifications that should be made in it. I suspect that 
several of my friends on both sides of the aisle would support some 
modification of H.R. 3801. But let us give this House a chance to hear 
this legislation and this is our chance to do it. That is why we have 
got to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will stay in the well for just a 
minute, I will say he is absolutely right. Our joint committee did 
meet; we marked up that reform bill. It was not to your satisfaction or 
to mine, but at least it was a start.
  Now we are being informed that not only will we not have a chance to 
vote on that bill, but it is going to be broken up into pieces and 
brought to this floor under closed rules so that Members from each 
individual district will not have a chance to work their will.
  Many things really need to be done, such as reducing the number of 
committees and subcommittees that would automatically reduce by one-
third the staff it takes now to man all of those committees. Abolish 
joint referrals. We have now in the House of Representatives 3 
different committes dealing with the health care issue and no less than 
10 subcommittees involved with it.
  That is why we cannot have a decent health care reform around here. 
We need to reform joint referrals. We need to ban proxy voting. We need 
to limit the terms of chairmen and even have term limitations for 
Members who serve on some committees perhaps. We need to apply the same 
laws to Congress that we foist on the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
  Let me just say to my friend that he has reminded me of the fact that 
I and my colleague from Cape Girardeau, MO [Mr. Emerson], were the only 
two who voted to move this process forward. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] very wisely voted against it, and the other Republicans 
on the committee voted against it, not believing that we would see real 
congressional reform.
  Yet, I being the eternal optimist, always looking for that silver 
lining in the dark cloud, and the pony when they provide me with a pile 
of manure, believed that we would be able to bring forward this reform 
package. Tragically, as we sit here, the issue of reform has been swept 
aside. I should underscore the fact that the gentleman from Indiana, 
Lee Hamilton, joins me in his grave concern over the direction we have 
taken. There are no fewer than two letters that he has sent to the 
chairman of our Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], where he stated how strongly he feels about the need to 
keep this reform package together so that all those items that my 
friend from Glens Falls has mentioned, those items such as committee 
structure reform, proxy voting, congressional compliance, budget 
reform, can be held together as they were intended to be held together 
as it was reported out of the joint committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I certainly hope the gentleman is going to be successful 
in defeating the previous question. Every responsible Member ought to 
vote against the previous question so that the gentleman will have that 
opportunity to bring that open rule to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, let me at this time yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss] another member of the Committee on Rules 
who has just returned to the floor.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone knows our budget process is broken. Yet our 
budget reform effort is like a scratched old 33 LP record skipping on 
the same line over and over again. Today we are discussing a bill that 
is virtually identical to one we passed earlier this Congress. H.R. 
4600 would make the same slight improvements to the procedure for 
considering Presidential rescissions that we made by passing H.R. 1578 
last year. That bill was dead on arrival in the other body, and there 
is no sign that this newly dressed up repeat version will do any 
better. Americans should know that debate and passage of this bill--
which in itself will do nothing--is part of a majority leadership buy-
off to prevent the A-to-Z spending cut proposal from coming to the 
floor. We are now providing cover for Democrats who want to say to 
their constituents in this election year that they took action to solve 
the budget crisis, but don't actually want to make real cuts. Put 
another way: We are trading words for action. The rule itself has good 
and bad points. On the plus side, we will have a chance to vote on two 
strengthening amendments--without the usual king-of-the-hill routine. 
The Solomon-Michel amendment is a true line-item veto. It would give 
the President permanent authority to propose rescissions to spending 
and tax benefits, and would require a two-thirds majority to 
override those cuts. The Kasich/Penny/Stenholm proposal, while not a 
panacea on its own, would expand the President's powers to target 
spending and tax-benefits. It would also permanently extend expedited 
rescission authority. Unfortunately, once again the Rules Committee has 
denied Mr. Michel an opportunity to offer a free-standing amendment to 
allow the President to target new tax-breaks. And it is somewhat ironic 
that in the so-called Year of Reform, the Rules Committee majority has 
refused to make in order an amendment encompassing the recommendations 
of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. I fully support 
the efforts of my friend, Mr. Dreier, in seeking to defeat the previous 
question on this rule so we may bring this bill back with some real 
reform attached.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. Speaker, reform is not about issuing press releases and staging 
floor votes for the C-Span cameras. Reform is about changing the way we 
operate so we can regain the trust of the American people which now 
hovers somewhere in the teen digit area when it comes to the U.S. 
Congress. We can do better.
  We are not talking here today about enhanced rescissions; we are not 
talking about line item veto. We are talking about expedited 
rescission, expedited. What, in fact, that means is we are going to 
move a little faster so we still cannot make the right decision. 
Instead of taking 3 days not to be able to make the decision, we are 
now going to take 5 or 10 days.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of improvement the American people 
are looking for.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Derrick] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of 
the rule and the bill.
  I, first of all, would note that the rule does provide opportunities, 
as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] just said, to vote for 
strengthening amendments, as Members would choose, including, as he has 
characterized, a vote on the true line-item veto, and I intend to vote 
for those strengthening amendments. That opportunity is provided to us 
by the Committee on Rules in this rule, and I thank them for it, and we 
do have the opportunity today to vote as we choose on the strongest 
possible version of this bill.
  The troubling aspect of this debate today is, as the other gentlemen 
have pointed out, that we are doing again today something very similar 
to what we have done before, a year ago, a bill which we approved in 
this House, not as strong as I would have liked or as I voted for a 
year ago, but that we sent to the Senate, and they did nothing.
  So what then is the purpose of us being here today?
  Well, I think the purpose of us being here today is to underscore, to 
reemphasize, that the House of Representatives, a majority of its 
Members, understands the importance of changing the rules with respect 
to spending, of giving the opportunity within the budget process to 
focus in in greater detail on the line items and that we are going to 
send another version over to the Senate. We are going to ask them again 
to ask on this issue.
  The fact of the matter is, on the merits of changing the rules with 
respect to spending, the government has changed since our Founding 
Fathers first framed the division of powers. I believe truly that, if 
they had seen the complexity of the budget process, if they understood 
the detail with which these line items must be gone over, that they 
would have no objection to finding a process by which the Executive and 
the legislature could work closer together to get at individual line 
items.
  The fact is that we need a process to review individual items of 
spending in the glare of the spotlight, in that light of day, and for 
the President to say again to the Congress, ``Look at that one again. I 
want you to stand up, and I want you to decide whether or not, indeed, 
you want this measure to be an appropriate use of the taxpayers' 
dollars.''
  I think we should support this rule and this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding, and I would simply like to say that my friend has, in fact on 
several occasions, testified before the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, and I know he has been part of an effort on 
the other side of the aisle to pursue this issue of reform.
  Now, he wisely says that it is important for us to underscore for the 
other body how important it is to address, rather than ignore, this 
issue of enhanced rescission. We have seen by their pattern that they 
have chosen to ignore this legislation that a year ago was reported out 
of here. But they are interested in the process of reform, and it seems 
to me that the only way for us to adequately move forward with this 
enhanced rescission bill that could get a response from the other body 
would be for us to do it under the rubric of H.R. 3801, a reform 
package.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] knows I am supportive of many aspects of 
congressional reform, but today what we need to do is focus in on the 
line item veto. Let us send that message to the other body. Let us get 
them to at least act on this.
  Mr. DREIER. We might be able to do that----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Swift). The time of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut] has expired.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I reserve 
the right to close.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Then, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, it is deja vu all over again. We 
are debating a measure today that has already been discussed at great 
length last year, and we are doing it for a very familiar reason.
  We are debating this bill so the Democratic leadership can once again 
prevent any real reform of the process they have controlled for 50 
years.
  We heard a lot about change in the 1992 elections, but we have seen 
precious little of it around this place. Time and again when reform 
proposals have been presented--proposals overwhelmingly supported by 
the American people--the Democratic leadership has found a way to shoot 
them down.
  It is my opinion that we need to make some fundamental changes in the 
way we do business. You cannot keep doing the same things and expect 
different results.
  We need to find ways to make real cuts in Federal spending. We need 
to pass term limits. We need to pass a balanced budget amendment. And 
we need to give the President line-item veto authority.
  It is that line-item veto power we ought to be voting on today, Mr. 
Speaker, but thanks to the Democrat leadership, we will be voting on a 
fake.
  The line-item veto is an integral part of any true reform effort and 
vital if we are ever going to end the kind of pork barrel spending that 
has so long dominated things around here.
  Forty-three Governors have the line-item veto power. Opponents say it 
won't work, it will not cut much; but it does work and it does bring 
responsibility to the legislative process. It works fine in Wyoming, 
and it would put some needed integrity into the process in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be fooled by what is going on here today. 
The Democratic leadership will do anything they can to avoid having to 
make real spending cuts and to avoid making any real changes to the way 
they've run Congress for so long.
  Just as the A-to-Z spending cut proposal is picking up steam, the 
leadership decides to have this exercise today so Members who don't 
sign the discharge petition can run home and claim they've voted for a 
line-item veto instead. The two shouldn't be tied together--they are 
separate issues--and the American people won't be fooled.
  I am disappointed we are taking this route, Mr. Speaker. We saw the 
same tactics used to pass the President's tax increase. We were told we 
would have a chance to vote for more spending cuts, then the leadership 
defeated Penny-Kasich.
  We saw the same tactics used when we debated the balanced budget 
amendment. The leadership offered a phony amendment which gave 
political cover to those who had promised to support a balanced budget 
amendment then refused to do so.
  And today we will have a leadership proposal used to defeat true 
line-item veto. I encourage my colleagues to vote for real line-item 
veto. Vote for the Solomon/Michel substitute. If that should fail, vote 
for Stenholm. But no one who truly supports line-item veto should vote 
for H.R. 4600.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Cape Girardeau, MO [Mr. Emerson], another member of the Joint Committee 
on Reform of the Congress, a gentleman who has been here for many years 
as a page, now as a Congressman.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my joint committee 
colleagues in urging the House to defeat the previous question and make 
in order the joint committee's bill.
  It is ironic that the majority leadership in this Congress appears to 
be in favor of about just every kind of reform for the American people 
except for reform for the Congress itself. They want to radically 
reform health care, tell everybody else how to operate, insurance 
companies, doctors, patients, how to choose their care. They want to 
fundamentally restructure education, dictating to the States how they 
are going to spend their dollars, how to structure their curriculum and 
how to teach their students.

                              {time}  1450

  Of course, they want to overhaul wetlands policy, instructing private 
property owners what they can and cannot do with their land, 
designating acres and acres of land as off limits and forcing 
businesses to cease their business activities.
  It seems that the majority wants to reform every aspect of everybody 
else's lives and livelihood. The only thing we refuse to reform here is 
the Congress itself.
  The joint committee was created to develop comprehensive 
congressional reform, and it did that. The committee went out of 
existence at the end of last year. Its report, 6 Democrats and 2 
Republicans of the 12-person House contingent of that committee voted 
to report a measure to the House, which has been languishing since last 
November.
  Now the leadership plans to split up that legislative package, which 
would effectively kill any reform that would actually impact the 
Congress.
  If reform is good for the rest of the country, it should be equally 
as good for Congress. I urge all of our colleagues to send a message 
that congressional reform is essential, and that the House can do unto 
itself what it does to other.
  At the point we voted earlier to abolish select committees in this 
House, there was a grand coalition of what we referred to as, and 
everybody knows what I am talking about, the old bulls and the freshmen 
Members, the young reformers of both parties. This was all done in the 
name of congressional reform.
  We had too many committees, so we abolished the select committees. 
All right, well and good.
  Why do we not move on with the rest of the forum? We do need to 
reform ourselves in so many areas. A blueprint is there, imperfect 
though it may be. But let us vote to defeat the previous question here, 
so at least the issue can come up, and we can debate it, discuss it, 
and vote upon it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the very 
illustrious gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Cape Girardeau, and a very 
hard working member of our Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress, said it very accurately when he raised the issue of health 
care reform, wetlands reform, education reform. I should say that he 
forgot to mention welfare reform. I mean, virtually every area of our 
economy has attempted to be reformed by this Congress, and yet we are 
sweeping the issue of congressional reform aside.
  After all, if you look at the 1992 election, there are now 117 new 
Members of this House, most of whom ran on the issue of reform of the 
Congress, because it was desperately needed. And here we are, charging, 
just weeks away from the 1994 election, and what is happening? Well, 
not a lot of people out there are talking about congressional reform 
anymore, because they are busy talking about health care reform and 
Haiti and North Korea and welfare reform and a large number of other 
items.
  But, quite frankly, congressional reform was the mandate that sent 
many of these new members here. And I believe that the American people 
and a majority of the Members of this Congress want us to deal with 
reform of this institution. It has not been done in nearly half a 
century, and it seems to me that this is our opportunity to do it.
  We have a chance. On this enhanced rescission bill, what I plan to 
do, if we can defeat the previous question, is insert at the end H.R. 
3801, which is the bill that was reported out of the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress just before Thanksgiving of last year. It 
gives us a chance to face the issue of congressional reform the way we 
should be doing it, straightforward. Not breaking it up into bits, 
which is nothing but a divided and conquer strategy.
  Now, I know there are many people here who thrive on the status quo. 
But, quite frankly, we need to become more accountable, more 
deliberative. And I believe that the full House has the right and the 
responsibility to look at our reform package.
  I urge a no vote on the previous question, so that we can make in 
order the issue of congressional reform.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say I commend the gentleman who has just spoken, 
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for their work. But I 
would have to say that even if the motion for the previous question 
were to fail, it is my opinion that the gentleman could not do what he 
proposes to do, that is, offer an amendment to the rule to enable him 
to offer H.R. 3801 as an amendment to this bill.
  Be that as it may, I find it rather disappointing that we once again 
take something serious like this reform measure, which is very good, 
and there are many parts of it that I agree with, and trivialize it. 
Moreover, to stand here and once again lambast this House of 
Representatives is disappointing. No one said it was perfect. Our 
Founding Fathers did not say they were giving us a perfect----
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DERRICK. I will not.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Swift). The gentleman from South 
Carolina has the time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask for regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has the 
time and is recognized.
  Mr. DERRICK. I go back to what I said, that the gentleman who spoke 
before lambasted this body.
  I think Members of both parties are guilty of it. I think the other 
party may be a little more guilty, but not enough to argue about, of 
taking every opportunity they get to denigrate the institutions of this 
government, especially the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DERRICK. No; I will not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has the 
time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, what worries me is that if Members continue 
to denigrate our institutions, they could weaken them to the point 
where someone could come along who might not have the same great 
appreciation for democracy that our Founding Fathers had, and we could 
one day lose this great form of government of ours.
  Ours is not a perfect form of government. Our Founding Fathers never 
said it was. But it works. This House works. This Congress works. It is 
the most representative body in the world, It serves our Nation and our 
people will. And I believe many who stand up and denigrate it believe 
continuously should have more respect for it than they have.
  Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, the Federal budget deficit is 
down, way down. For the first time since the Truman administration, the 
United States will experience, thanks entirely to the President and the 
Democrats in the Congress, 3 years of declining Federal budget 
deficits.
  But we cannot rest. We must continue battling the deficit until 
victory is won. The legislative line item veto is not the only solution 
to our problems, but it is part of the solution. We owe it to our 
citizens to send to the Senate a message that we must give this line 
item veto a try, for the sake of future generations, if not for our 
own.
  Now Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is 
proposing, is defeating the previous question so he can amend the 
resolution to make in order an amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 
3801, the Legislation Reorganization Act.

                              {time}  1500

  This is not permissible under House precedents. Such an amendment 
would not be germane to the resolution and would surely be ruled out of 
order.
  The gentleman will knows it is not in order to amend an order-of-
business resolution to accomplish indirectly that which he cannot 
achieve directly. So let no Member of this House be fooled. Voting 
against the previous question in hopes of adding H.R. 3801 to the 
rescission bill simply will not work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Swift). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 5(b) of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time within which a rollcall 
vote, if ordered, may be taken on the adoption of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 185, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               YEAS--240

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

                               NAYS--185

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     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
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop
     Carr
     Gallo
     McCurdy
     Obey
     Quillen
     Slattery
     Towns
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1520

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McCurdy for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Mr. GLICKMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________