[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 96 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4604, BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 1994

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 484 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 484

       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. 4604) to establish direct spending targets, 
     and for other purposes. 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 equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Rules and thirty minutes 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. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of the bill modified by the amendment 
     printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. No other amendment 
     shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 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 part 2 of the report are waived. If more than one 
     of the amendments printed in part 2 of the report is adopted, 
     only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally 
     adopted and reported to the House. 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 finally adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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. (Mr. Wise). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 484 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 4604, the Budget Control Act of 1994. The 
resolution allows up to 1 hour of general debate, with 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.
  Under the rule, after general debate the bill will be considered as 
read and considered for amendment as specified in House Report 103-614 
accompanying the resolution.
  Part one of House Report 103-614 makes in order as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of a modified H.R. 4604 which exempts Social Security from 
the provisions of the bill.
  No amendments would be in order except the three amendments in the 
nature of substitutes printed in part two of House Report 103-614. The 
amendments would be considered in the following order under a king-of-
the-hill procedure: first, the amendment by Representative Kasich or a 
designee; second, the amendment by Representative Stenholm or a 
designee; and third, the amendment by Representative Stupak or a 
designee. Should more than one amendment be adopted, only the last 
amendment adopted would be reported to the House.
  Each amendment would be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent thereto. The amendments 
would not be subject to further 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 would be waived.
  Finally, the resolution provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Budget Control Act of 1994 is designed to improve 
the budget process and safeguard the deficit reduction achieved in last 
year's reconciliation act.
  As the Members know, the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act has already 
reduced the Federal budget deficit dramatically in the mere 11 months 
since its passage.
  A deficit that exceeded $290 billion in fiscal year 1992 fell to $255 
billion in fiscal year 1993 and will fall to $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 poised to enjoy 3 consecutive years of declining budget deficits. 
This is a great achievement. And let the record show that these 
declining deficits were made possible by the tough medicine 
administered by the President and the Democrats in this Congress.
  Although the budget deficit is falling and all signs indicate that it 
will continue to fall over the next few years, Americans clearly want 
us to make additional deficit reductions, and we are doing so. In May 
and June of this year we passed appropriations bills for next year 
calling for spending nearly $11 billion less than the current budget 
freeze would allow.
  Last week we passed another bill to give the President a modified 
line-item veto. That bill now pending in the Senate, which I hope will 
act soon.
  Health care reform legislation, which is a critical part of the 
President's deficit reduction program due to burgeoning growth in 
Federal health care programs, is under consideration.
  Today I bring to the House another deficit reduction measure, to make 
process changes dealing with the largest category of Federal spending, 
so-called entitlements.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4604 will create a process whereby the President 
and Congress will review annually through fiscal year 1997 the 
entitlement portion of the Federal budget. This review will compare 
spending on entitlements in the previous year, the budget year, and the 
4 succeeding years, to targets established pursuant to the bill.
  The targets would be set by the Office of Management and Budget 
within 30 days of enactment and would be based on spending resulting 
from laws enacted as of 5 days before OMB set the targets. To set the 
targets OMB would use the assumptions underlying last year's budget 
resolution to the extent feasible.
  OMB would adjust the targets each year to reflect changes in 
beneficiary populations, legislated net revenue increases, and spending 
resulting from legislation designated as emergency under the Budget 
Enforcement Act.
  If the annual review reveals that entitlement spending exceeded or 
will exceed the target in any year by more than one-half of 1 percent, 
then the President would have to include in his budget recommendations 
for addressing the overage. To eliminate the overage, the President 
could recommend any combination of cuts in entitlements, reductions in 
discretionary appropriations, or revenue increases.
  In the event the President finds an overage, the House Budget 
Committee must include in a separate section of the budget resolution 
provisions instructing the appropriate committees to report legislation 
cutting spending or increasing revenues. These instructions must call 
for savings equal to or exceeding the total recommended by the 
President for action, up to the full amount of the overage. In the 
event the Budget Committee failed to report a budget resolution 
addressing overages, then the President's recommendations could be 
brought directly to the floor for a vote.
  If a budget resolution proposes to offset less than the full overage 
found by the President, the Budget Committee must report a resolution 
directing the Government Operations Committee to report legislation 
increasing the targets by the amount of the overage not offset. This 
mechanism is intended to create an opportunity for a separate vote on 
raising the targets if the Budget Committee does not fully address an 
overage. It would not be in order to consider a budget resolution 
addressing less than the full overage until the separate vote on 
raising the targets had occurred.
  In addition, the bill contains other enforcement measures. First, a 
budget resolution conference report must fully address any overage 
found by the President either through spending cuts, revenue increases 
or target increases, or be subject to a point of order. Second, it 
would not be in order to consider any appropriations bills in the House 
until a budget resolution fully addressing any overages had been agreed 
to. These enforcement measures are designed to preclude Congress from 
shirking its responsibility to deal with any overages found by the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, as introduced H.R. 4604 is identical to provisions 
included in the House version of last year's reconciliation bill. Due 
to parliamentary constraints in the Senate, the provisions did not 
appear in the Senate version of the bill or in the conference report. 
So the President imposed the requirements on himself by executive 
order, and the House adopted House Resolution 235, which imposed 
procedural requirements on us similar to those contemplated by the 
bill.
  The rule before us today would modify H.R. 4604 to improve it in one 
very important way: to exclude Social Security from the entitlement 
review and exclude benefit cuts from consideration as a recommended 
solution to an overage.
  Given the large balances in the trust funds, Social Security could 
not cause an overage. Since Social Security could not cause the 
problem, it ought not be part of the solution. Including Social 
Security in this process would make no sense and frighten our senior 
citizens unnecessarily.
  Mr. Speaker, passing this bill would codify and improve the process 
created by the executive order and House Resolution 235. It would give 
the Senate another opportunity to add provisions allowing that body to 
consider remedial legislation if entitlement spending exceeds the 
levels contemplated in last year's budget. I urge all Members to 
support the bill.
  I also urge Members to vote for the rule. It makes in order all the 
substitutes the Committee on Rules was asked to make in order, and 
provides for a king-of-the-hill procedure in the event more than one of 
the amendments is adopted. The rule will modify the base bill to exempt 
Social Security and allow for a full airing of the remaining issues 
involved.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today we take the next step in the majority 
leadership's elaborate plan to derail the A-to-Z spending cut proposal. 
For the A-to-Z experts, this legislation is a train wreck being passed 
off as a station stop. Last week, the House repassed a measure we had 
passed once before--the so-called expedited rescission bill--that died 
an uneventful death in the other body.
  Today's bill was also passed once by this House, as part of last 
year's budget resolution--but it too died because of the other body. 
Yet, the majority leadership is bound and determined to block the 
commonsense A-to-Z plan for cutting spending, so we are taking valuable 
legislative time to cover this ground again, even though these measures 
will not ever reach the President's desk. As a member of the 
President's bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, I am 
troubled that this issue is being rammed onto the House floor at this 
time. The 32 commissioners are working hard to study thoughtfully and 
specifically the whole entitlement picture and develop meaningful 
policy recommendations by the end of the year. So why undercut these 
serious efforts with a short-term political ploy? Could it be the 
elections in November? H.R. 4604 also represents the first real effort 
to divide and conquer comprehensive congressional reform. Everyone 
knows that, to pass the necessary changes in the way Congress operates, 
Members need to have some good news sweeteners to vote for to make the 
bitter medicine of real reform a bit easier to swallow. By breaking 
apart the joint committee package, the Speaker is practically ensuring 
that the tougher provisions of reform will not pass this House. It is 
especially frustrating that the only so-called reform provisions we are 
dealing with have little chance of being enacted and would accomplish 
little even if they were. It is just more hoops. Members should note 
that the so-called entitlement spending caps established by H.R. 4604 
and set by OMB will likely have little impact on the explosion of 
entitlement spending--because the targets keep rising in the out years, 
just enough to stay above the estimated levels of direct spending. So, 
cap or no cap, this measure is unlikely to force politically difficult 
reductions in entitlement spending. But, if you read the fine print of 
this rule, which self-executes a change in language to H.R. 4604, you 
will find that the bill actually opens the door for higher Social 
Security taxes in the event that entitlement spending does ever exceed 
the caps. We are gratified that the majority belatedly recognized the 
need to protect Social Security benefits from cuts--Social Security is 
self-financing, should remain off-budget and should not be used to 
cover shortfalls in other programs. But the new and improved language 
may be worse than the original because it opens the door for higher 
Social Security payroll taxes presumably these can be used for other 
entitlements. Members who know that higher taxes are not the answer to 
our budget problems should recognize that this language provides a 
major opportunity for tax increases. Mr. Speaker, this rule also 
employs the unfair procedure known as King of the Hill to give Members' 
cover in their votes here today. It stacks the deck against the Kasich-
McMillan-Kolbe substitute--which actually has real teeth, forces 
Congress to set and live with meaningful targets, and properly exempts 
the entire Social Security Program. Even if this House approves Kasich, 
the majority will have a shot to reverse that vote, by bringing the 
Spratt-Stupak text of H.R. 4604 back up at the end of debate for one 
more vote. Sandwiched in the middle is a third proposal, the Stenholm-
Penny-Deal-LaRocco-Orton plan, which leaves Social Security benefits 
vulnerable and leaves the targets up to OMB. Under this rule, Members 
could vote for more than one option with the security of knowing the 
leadership's favorite will still prevail. We should do away with this 
disingenuous confusing procedure, and instead have clean votes on all 
proposals, with the highest vote getter winning the day. In closing, I 
urge my colleagues to support Mr. Dreier in his attempt to defeat the 
previous question so that he may offer a further amendment on 
comprehensive congressional reform. We have missed too many 
opportunities for reform already--vote no on the previous question.

  Mr. Speaker, I include the following documents relating to open 
versus restrictive rules and rollcall votes;


 roll call votes in the rules committee on motions to proposed rule on 
            the budget control act, wednesday, july 20, 1991

       1. Modified King-of-Hill.--It is moved that in lieu of the 
     king-of-the hill language in the rule providing that the last 
     amendment adopted be reported to the House, the amendment 
     adopted receiving the most favorable votes shall be 
     considered as the one finally adopted and reported back to 
     the House. Rejected: 4-6. Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, and 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall and 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat and Gordon.
       2. Consideration of Legislative Reorganization Act.--It is 
     moved that the text of H.R. 3801 (except for Subtitle E, 
     ``Budget Control'') shall be considered as a further 
     amendment at the end of the bill, following the disposition 
     of other amendments made in order by the rule to the Budget 
     Control Act. The text of H.R. 3801 would be considered as 
     original text for further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule if such amendments are offered by Reps. Hamilton, Dreir, 
     or their designees, and confined to the specified subject 
     areas of the bill. Points of order are waived against the 
     amendment. Rejected: 4-6. Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, and 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall and 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat and Gordon.
       3. Motion to Report Rule.--Motion to report rule as 
     originally moved, providing for one-hour of general debate, 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute as base text, 
     three substitute amendments under king-of-hill procedure, 40 
     minutes debate each, and one motion to recommit, with or 
     without instructions. Adopted: 6-4. Yeas: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Hall and Slaughter. Nays: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier and Goss. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat and Gordon.


roll call votes on motions in the rules committee on proposed rule for 
       the entitlement bill (h.r. 4604), thursday, july 14, 1994

       (1) Dreier Motion to Table H.R. 4604.--A motion that the 
     Committee table H.R. 4604, the ``Budget Control Act of 
     1994.'' Rejected: 3-4. Yeas: Solomon, Dreier and Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson and Slaughter. Not Voting: Frost, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon and Quillen.
       (2) Dreier Motion to Postpone Consideration to a Date 
     Certain.--A motion to postpone consideration of H.R. 4604, 
     the ``Budget Control Act of 1994,'' to a date certain, that 
     date being the meeting date following the day after the 
     Committee has disposed of consideration of H.R. 3801, the 
     ``Legislative Reorganization of 1994.'' Rejected: 3-4. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson 
     and Slaughter. Not Voting: Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon 
     and Quillen.
       (3) Dreier Motion to Commit With Instructions.--A motion to 
     commit the bill H.R. 4604, the ``Budget Control Act of 
     1994,'' to the Subcommittee on Legislative Process with 
     instructions not to report back to the same to the Committee 
     until it has conducted hearings and studies the provisions of 
     the bill in the overall context of the need for comprehensive 
     reform of the Congress and reported back to the Committee its 
     findings and recommendations thereon. Rejected: 3-4. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson 
     and Slaughter. Not Voting: Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon 
     and Quillen.

                                  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).............................................           78      19         24       59         76 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 20, 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.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  .................................
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
ranking member, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Sanibel, FL, for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the previous question vote on 
this rule is where we draw the line between those who want to reform 
this House and those who do not.
  A survey of House Members taken last year by the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress revealed that 91.2 percent of House 
Members agreed that major procedural and organizational improvements 
are needed in the way Congress conducts its legislative business.
  And that was an overwhelming bipartisan response--87.7 percent of the 
Democrats agreed we need major reform and 96.4 percent of the 
Republicans.
  Well, here is your chance to put your vote where your heart and mind 
and mouth are. A ``no'' vote on the previous question on this rule is a 
vote to consider the joint committee's congressional reform bill under 
a fair and open amendment process at the end of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the former chairman of the joint reform committee, Lee 
Hamilton, has met with the Speaker and the chairman of the Rules 
Committee to urge that we consider the Legislative Reorganization Act 
of 1994 under a generous rule and that we keep that bill intact and not 
split it up into several pieces. That commitment has not been 
forthcoming.
  Instead, today we are being asked by this rule to consider just one 
piece of the joint committee's bill relating to entitlement process 
review as a separate matter. This is the first installment of a 3-D 
strategy to divide, dilute and delay on real reform. That is why this 
is where we must make our stand and give a resounding ``no'' vote on 
the previous question.
  Up until now, the leadership has only been hearing from the opponents 
of any meaningful reform--the committee bulls, the special interests, 
their in-House caucuses, and the appropriators. The leadership has not 
been getting equally strong signals from proponents of reform--rank and 
file Members like you and me and our constituents.
  Well, today is your chance to send that message by your vote on the 
previous question for this rule.
  If your constituents are anything like mine, and I suspect they are, 
they do not think we are presently organized or operate in their best 
interests and they want us to change all that so that we are more open, 
representative, deliberative and responsive.
  This all boils down to a question of whose government this is, 
anyway: the people's or the professional politicians' and special 
interest groups'? Right now the people think they have been shut out of 
their own House and they want back in.
  Mr. Speaker, do not mistake the lack of a groundswell for a special 
congressional reform bill for the lack of interest in reform.
  Nothing could be more mistaken, foolish or politically suicidal. The 
American people still want change, and they want change to begin at 
home--in the people's House. Ignore this at your own peril.
  Mr. Speaker, I am continuously amazed at how out of touch some people 
in this House are about what the people they represent are thinking and 
saying.
  The chairman of the Democratic caucus was quoted in the July 9 
Congressional Quarterly as saying that, with the exception of the 
congressional coverage issue, the rest of the reform bill is inside 
baseball stuff that will not help to improve the poor public image of 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I must take strong exception to this cynical view that 
we only have an image problem, that can somehow be fixed with a little 
public relations job of bringing Congress under the laws we impose on 
others.
  As important as that issue may be, that is not the main reason we 
have less than a 30-percent public approval rating.
  We have an image problem because we do not work the way the 
Constitution and the people think we should work--and that is for the 
people. The people look at us and cannot relate what we are doing and 
how we are doing it to the real, workaday world in which they live.
  They really think we are living on another planet if not in another 
universe. We are not connecting.
  Reform of this House is overdue--long overdue. The people said that 
in the 1992 elections. So far we have ignored them. They are going to 
say it again in the 1994 elections if we do not act now.
  Their concerns and demands for change are valid and deserve to be 
addressed. The time is at hand to restore the people's House to the 
people. If we do not respond to this demand for change now, the people 
will see to it that new people are elected to this House who are more 
responsive.
  Here is your chance to show you are for change and congressional 
reform. Vote down the previous question so that we can consider the 
congressional reform bill under a fair and open amendment process.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm], a leading conservative in this body, I might add.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is often confusing to those of us on 
the floor and those of us who read the Congressional Record what the 
subject of the debate was that we are here to talk about. It is the 
rule. It has nothing to do with congressional reform, because I will 
assure my colleague from New York that I will be joining him at the 
appropriate time in the appropriate place for a thorough consideration 
of the congressional reform bill. This is not the time to do it, and it 
just confuses the issue.
  I was listening to my friend from New York and I was thinking that I 
think on these rules many times I could serve up the biggest, best dish 
of blue bell ice cream in Texas, and pour the chocolate on it, and 
spoon-feed it to the gentleman, and he would not be happy with the 
rule. But anyway, enough of that right now. Let us get back to the 
subject which we are talking about, the rule on the bill that we have 
to do, because I think I find this rule interesting.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule allowing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4604, the Budget Control Act of 1994. This rule 
makes in order the three leading approaches to controlling entitlement 
spending: First, a Kasich amendment which changes the current budget 
resolution into a joint resolution requiring a Presidential signature, 
in which entitlement caps are set without restriction at whatever level 
Congress selects every year, and cap overages are dealt with ultimately 
through categorical sequestration; Second, the Stenholm amendment which 
sets mandatory targets for the next 5 years, sets out a process by 
which Congress could reduce entitlement spending and set categorical 
caps, ultimately enforceable through sequestration; and third, the 
Spratt base bill which creates an entitlement control mechanism to 
monitor the total costs of direct spending programs and, in the event 
that actual or projected costs exceed targeted levels, requires the 
Congress and the President to address the overage, enforceable through 
House points of order.
  Let me first commend our leadership for bringing this issue to a vote 
here in the House of Representatives. It is easy for each of us to make 
endless speeches about entitlement spending as the ultimate culprit in 
our national deficits. Far more difficult is creating the process 
whereby we will be forced to deal with that so-called uncontrollable 
spending, and more difficult still will be the specific policy changes 
that will be required to actually reduce entitlement spending.
  For years I have called for an honest show of how Members of Congress 
will choose to move beyond the stump speech and into action. What I 
have found encouraging in this process this year has been the 
increasing willingness to deal with the entitlement issue. There is a 
growing awareness among House Members that the only way we deal with 
deficit reduction is through entitlement spending restraint. That 
awareness extends from members of the Rules Committee to freshmen to 
the leadership and many spots in between. I am proud of our leadership, 
and particularly leader Gephardt, for providing us this opportunity 
today.
  There are some who will complain about this rule because it is 
structured in a so-called king-of-the-hill fashion. while I agree that 
there might be other ways to structure this rule, I commend the Rules 
Committee for allowing up-or-down votes on each of the amendments that 
were brought before them. Members who are nervous about the substance 
of these amendments should not hide behind the skirts of procedural 
arguments for protection.
  Many of the arguments which generally are lodged against king-of-the-
hill rules are irrelevant in this case. This is not a case where the 
most extreme amendment is offered first and can then be covered by a 
weaker amendment offered second. As my opponents on the Republican side 
have gleefully and frequently pointed out, my amendment, which will be 
offered second, takes the harsh approach of including all programs in 
the potential sequestration. I believe this inclusion is, in truth, not 
dangerous as my opponents call it but, in fact, the only fair way to 
proceed. I will have more to say on that point later on. I make the 
point now, however, to say that the people who will complain about this 
rule are also the ones who talk about the harsher approach of this 
second amendment, a procedural position which theoretically is more 
protected under a king-of-the-hill rule.
  Furthermore, my amendment, the second amendment to be offered, is the 
stronger one because it is the only amendment which CBO could actually 
score as creating savings over the next 4 years. Under the first 
amendment, the Kasich amendment, a CBO score is impossible because no 
one knows what cap Congress will come up with. It certainly would be 
the easiest option for Congress to set a cap which never would be 
breached and therefore no entitlement cuts were ever required. No 
wonder CBO couldn't score this amendment. But again, my point at this 
time is simply to say that from a deficit hawk's perspective, this 
second amendment--this amendment supposedly protected by king-of-the-
hill--is the stronger one.
  Therefore, I again would say to my colleagues, don't hide behind 
procedure as protection from expressing your true position on 
entitlement spending. Regardless of your approach on entitlement 
spending, regardless of whether you are Henry Waxman or Charlie 
Stenholm, the Black Caucus or the Conservative Opportunity Society, 
here is your chance to show where you stand on entitlements.
  Vote ``yes'' on the rule and then show your true colors on 
entitlement spending.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from greater San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], who 
understands what this reform is about.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL, for yielding and for the excellent job he is doing on this 
rule as he does on all rules upstairs.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, having listened to the arguments provided by 
my friend from Texas, he did not offer me any ice cream or chocolate 
sauce at all. We do, on more than a few occasions, support rules, and 
we support them when they deal in an open way allowing for virtually 
every item that is considered to be debated here.
  But he said that it really is not appropriate for us to deal with 
congressional reform on this, and I would say to him that H.R. 4604, 
what we are dealing with, is part of the congressional reform package 
which we have been promised would be coming forward here for the last, 
oh, about 10 months now, really since last fall. And so what we have 
decided is that since we have been promised time and time again that 
this measure will be brought forward that we would say, hey, when one 
of those items which is part of our reform package is being brought 
down from the Committee on Rules, we should simply move to include the 
reform package with that. That is the reason we are trying to defeat 
the previous question, so that we can include the Budget Control Act 
and a wide range of other provisions which this House and the American 
people desperately want us to pursue.
  Now, I am sure many of us saw the Roll Call earlier this week in 
which an editorial described where we are going on the issue of 
congressional reform, and it was very unfortunate in this piece 
entitled, ``Who Lost Reform''; they said that the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress is a total failure, and they went on to 
say that the Speaker and other Democratic leaders were clearly never 
serious about reform.
  Now, I know that there are Democrats and Republicans in this House 
who are serious about reform, but we all know that there are many 
people, committee chairmen and others, who thrive on the status quo and 
do not want us to shake up a half a century of a system that has been 
handled without the kind of reform that is necessary, nearly half a 
century since we have really brought about the kind of reform the 
American people and, I believe, a majority of this institution wants.
  Now, we have been joined here by every Member on the minority who 
served on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. We have 
got the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], 
and we have got the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] here and 
others, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who worked for that 
period of a year trying to bring about meaningful reform, and 
tragically we have been shut out, and that is why we have been led to 
the point where we want to do everything that we can to bring H.R. 3801 
up here under an amendment process which will allow all of the items 
that we had to be considered.
  Let me just raise one other item specifically on the rule that I 
think bears touching on, and that is this king of the hill question. My 
friend said the king of the hill procedure under this rule will allow 
for the measure to consider different ideas.
  Well, frankly, the king of the hill procedure that we have presently 
is very unfair. I believe, and a majority of the Members on our side 
clearly believe, that the king of the hill procedure that we have 
should require that the amendment that gets the largest number of votes 
is the one that stands, not the last one that passes. That is the way 
the king of the hill procedure should be offered.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the committee.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are told over and over and over again, even by 
Members whom we all respect like the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas, that it is not the time to argue on behalf of congressional 
reform.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I disagree. I think it is the time to argue for 
reform, and so I again rise to urge my colleagues to do the right 
thing, to defeat the previous question so that we can bring real 
congressional reform to the floor of the House this year.
  Once again, we see a piecemeal approach to reform shaping up. Once 
again, we see a lack of desire to take on the kind of package of 
reforms that most of us promised the American people. Once again, I 
remind my colleagues that the House chairman of the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], and his cochairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], have called for rejection of the piecemeal approach so that 
the House may consider a comprehensive package of reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, the editors at Roll Call got it right on Monday when 
they wrote an editorial that Democrat leaders were clearly never 
serious about reform; they have stalled and stalled.
  My colleagues, the time for stalling is past. We can take back the 
system and give this institution the kind of reform that it needs and 
that the people desire, if we simply defeat the previous question. Then 
we can take up the bill that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
refers to that came out of all of the work that was put in by the 
members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.
  And let me remind the House that package is hardly revolutionary. 
Quite the contrary; in fact, Roll Call called it a mouse, and I have 
described the reforms as pastel changes, nothing bold.
  The bill, however, is at least a starting point, and under an open 
rule we can amend it and vote in bolder amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some here who will argue that a vote on 
congressional compliance will suffice for reform this year. I disagree 
strongly.
  I refer my colleagues again to the insightful editorial by Roll Call, 
and I quote:

       What about other meaningful congressional reforms that the 
     public was led to expect from the joint committee, changes 
     like a more rational system of committee jurisdiction, like a 
     family-friendly schedule, like strict new limits on the 
     numbers of committee and subcommittee assignments? These 
     apparently will fall by the wayside. They should not.

  Mr. Speaker, I agree, let us get to real reform. Let us defeat the 
previous question. Let us not continue to build a voting record against 
even considering bold reform. Let us do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, 
because until we get real congressional reform to this floor, the real 
reformers around here are bound and determined never to give up.
  Let us defeat the previous question.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], who has helped 
lead the charge on congressional reform.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Make no mistake about it, this vote is a litmus test on reform.
  The Joint Committee spent an entire year conducting one of the most 
comprehensive studies of this institution. The result was a bill that 
addresses several areas of reform. The bill is not as strong as some of 
us would like, but there's no reason we should not bring it to the 
floor where we can improve it and pass it.
  Most of what is in the Budget Control Act is in the joint committee 
bill. Bringing this bill up by itself marks the beginning of the end of 
our chance to pass comprehensive congressional reform in a single 
package.
  A vote for this rule is a vote in support of the leadership's 
strategy of picking, choosing, and diluting what reform we will deal 
with this year.
  A vote against this rule is a vote for real reform, the kind of 
reform the American people demanded in 1992 when they elected the 
largest freshman class since the 1940's.
  As a Member of that freshman class who has been very active in the 
reform effort, I can tell you that this is a key vote. If you have 
talked about the need for reform, this is where your rhetoric meets up 
with your record.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question and let the hard work of Mr. 
Dreier, Mr. Hamilton, and the rest of the Joint Committee see the light 
of day.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], a member of the Joint Committee 
on Reform.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me to 
speak on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. The Budget Control Act is not new, and the 
intentions behind it are barely concealed by claims of fiscal 
responsibility.
  H.R. 4604 is very similar to title III, subsection (e), of H.R. 3801, 
the Congressional Reform Act proposed by the Joint Committee on the 
Reorganization of Congress.
  Within the context of this bill the Budget Control Act would be 
effective as one element contributing to the substantial reform 
package. By removing the Budget Control Act from H.R. 3801, the 
leadership has taken the first step in plucking the reform package 
apart. The obvious purpose is to allow the leadership to select the 
reforms that they deem appropriate and harmless.
  Furthermore, the leadership has found a way to make reform even less 
effective. This bill lacks any significant enforcement measures. 
Considering this weakness, the reason for this proposal is puzzling 
unless we conclude that the only objective is to attack true, 
comprehensive reform.
  If we support this rule, the leadership will continue to pick and 
choose reform issues and we will surrender our chance for meaningful 
reform.
  Again, I urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question to H.R. 
4604, so that the Dreier amendment may be considered. The Dreier 
amendment opens the process to the consideration of true congressional 
reform.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that a ``yes'' vote can be 
voted for more meaningful budget reform and true congressional reform.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], also a member of the Joint 
Committee on Reform.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. I think the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should vote down here today and I seriously 
urge the House to vote down the previous question so that we may 
consider the issue of congressional reform. I listened to the speech of 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas, my friend, about Republican 
disingenuity. I think that is what it boiled down to. The fact of the 
matter is I think the majority is disingenuous as to how they run this 
place.
  In the earliest hearing of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization 
of Congress, Speaker Foley came to us and made a speech, which was 
received, I think, very well by the whole group, urging the majority to 
address the issues of congressional reform as though it were the 
minority, and he urged the minority to consider the issues of 
congressional reform as though it were the majority. The idea was that 
we could both understand where each other was coming from.
  I think we in the minority have had a great deal of practice of 
imagining ourselves in the majority, which I think we will soon become, 
and I think we will become the majority because of the lack of fairness 
on the part of the current majority.
  The public sees this; this congressional reform issues is one that 
has languished and has been torpedoed from every angle. What is really 
intended as congressional reform somehow does not wind up before us, 
but instead some other subject that gets the name of congressional 
reform but is not what the reform committee really produced.
  A couple of us, Mr. Dreier and I, Republicans on the committee, voted 
with the majority to report a measure out with an understanding with 
Chairman Hamilton that he would seek a generous rule so that this 
matter could be fully considered and the House could work its will and 
perhaps some comity could be restored in this body by everybody having 
a piece of the action.
  Since that time, since we reported the measure of the joint committee 
there has been every effort to put it under the table, to not let it 
come forward, however you want to put it, the year-long efforts of the 
Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress. I do not know what 
the majority has to fear other than its leadership may lose the 
hammerlock hold it has on this body.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous questions so we can get the legitimate 
subject of congressional reform before this body for debate and vote.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment or two of the time 
remaining and then I will yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] to close.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I may possibly make a couple of remarks in 
closing, but other than that, at this time we have no additional 
speakers.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, with that understanding, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume, and I simply would like to say what we have here 
is really two subjects we are talking about here. The first is the 
question about reform. And there is the potential for reform when we 
are talking about entitlements. It is an appropriate subject for 
reform. It is a subject that the Joint Committee on Reform dealt with 
and we missed an opportunity here. I think it has been characterized 
not only as a missed opportunity but it has been labeled outright 
stalling. This is not gridlock. This is a chance to do something, an 
appropriate chance to do something. We are not going to do anything.
  So I think it is fair to characterize this as a major stall by the 
leadership, the majority leadership.
  The second thing I wanted to talk about is this question of getting 
some kind of control on entitlement spending. We are talking about--we 
talked about expedited rescission, which is pending in the Senate, 
pending unto death in the Senate.
  Now we have some talk, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina 
said, ``Well, the deficit is under control.'' The operative words, 
``for the next few years.''
  Yes, the deficit may be only in the vicinity of $200 billion or so. 
If that is under control, that is your definition and not mine.
  But we are going to be looking at a deficit going south after the 
next few years. It is not just going south, it is going south big time. 
We are talking about $6 trillion-plus after 1996, which is, 
incidentally, as everybody knows, the next Presidential election.
  The point here is that we are trying to do something meaningful about 
entitlement spending. What we have come up with is a bunch of floating 
targets, a bunch of rubber triggers, in fact what is a decoy. My 
prediction is we will end up right back where we started from, pretend 
we have done something, and it is a decoy.
  I am reminded of the New York Times article back in 1993 that took 
Mr. Foley, our Speaker, to task, saying, ``The bill readying for the 
floor is a sham. It is only to protect incumbents and wealthy special 
interests at the expense of democracy and cleaner government.'' The New 
York Times using those harsh words about the Speaker was, of course, 
talking about campaign finance reform. But I think the word sham 
applies when we talk here today about we are getting control of 
entitlement spending. We simply are not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the subject here today is really reform, and I too would 
suggest that we defeat the previous question. What we find out on the 
floor today is what kind of reforms we get when people are squeezed a 
little to get reform on the floor and who is willing to do the 
squeezing. Because what we have here is a process that brought us a 
reform bill that is included in the Hamilton-Dreier committee's 
platform or in their presentation, and yet the whole Hamilton-Dreier 
program cannot come to the floor because the pressure on the Democratic 
side of the aisle to squeeze for those kinds of reforms has not been 
there. Instead what we are getting is little bits and pieces paraded 
onto the floor that are called reform.
  Today there has been enough of a squeeze to get the entitlement 
program out here; next week or the week after we may have enough of a 
squeeze to get congressional compliance out of here to have us covered 
by the rest of the laws. But what about all the other reforms? Who on 
the Democratic side of the aisle is going to squeeze the process enough 
to get us real reform?
  I do not think it is going to happen. The arrangement made yesterday 
indicates that we are going to leave some of those reforms until 
September and we all know what is going to happen then. In fact, if you 
believe we are going to get major reform here in September, I have some 
oceanfront property in Arizona I would be happy to sell to anyone who 
believes that.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question; let us get real reform on the 
floor right now.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues who have spoken 
saying that a no vote on the previous question is really our great 
opportunity to bring about congressional reform. We have talked about 
it for a long period of time. It began in the summer of 1992, 2 years 
ago, when we had all of those great scandals that were hovering over 
this place, the post office and the bank, and some people were not 
paying their restaurant bills downstairs, and in a bipartisan way the 
membership decided that we would spend a year and put into place a 
committee that would bring about reforms, the first time in nearly half 
a century reforms that would look at the committee structure, look at 
the budget process, look at the scheduling, look at all of the things 
that have been going on, and on, and on here for years that frankly 
need to be modified.
  Why? Not just to make things go more efficiently, but so that this 
institution can become more accountable, more deliberative, the way the 
Founding Fathers envisaged the greatest deliberative body known to man. 
Now there are some who have said oh, yes, we are going to have an 
opportunity to bring about reform later on. We heard about this plan of 
bringing it up after the Labor Day break. But you know we were promised 
last fall that we would have this considered on the floor before the 
joint committee went out of existence on December 31, 1993. Then we 
were promised that it would come up in early spring of this year, then 
in late spring, then in early summer, and here we are at mid-summer, 
and we have been told now that some deal has been struck which is going 
to create what I believe is nothing more than a divide and conquer 
strategy, trying to separate out congressional compliance and say we 
will in the future, we will look at all the other items for 
congressional reform which the American people and a majority of this 
institution clearly wants to see implemented.
  Well, frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are not moving in that direction in a 
positive way. We need to defeat the previous question so that we can 
make in order the package reported out, H.R. 3801.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I thank the gentleman from Sanibel for yielding me this time and ask 
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call 
published an editorial that asked the question, ``Who Lost Reform?'' 
The editorial called the work of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress ``a total failure.'' It said that the Speaker 
and ``other Democratic leaders were clearly never serious about 
reform.''
  Given the obstacles put in the way of efforts this year by the 
cochairman of the Joint Committee, Lee Hamilton, and me to bring the 
reform package to the floor as one package, the editorial painted a 
stark and accurate picture.
  But being the eternal optimist that I am, I believe there is still 
time to prove the editors of Roll Call wrong. To do that, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question on this 
rule.
  That vote will be the first test of whether the House intends to keep 
the recommendations of the Joint Committee intact, or kill reform by 
splitting it into little pieces for separate consideration.
  As my colleagues know, language virtually identical to H.R. 4604 is 
contained in the Joint Committee's reform package. As the Joint 
Committee recognized, for this entitlement control provision to be 
effective, it must be addressed in the context of comprehensive budget 
process and congressional reform. A biennial budget process is one such 
coincidental reform contained in that package.
  If the previous question is defeated, Mr. Speaker, 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. 4604 consisting of the text of 
H.R. 3801, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994.
  It would allow for amendments in the areas of the budget process; the 
committee system; floor deliberations and scheduling; staff resources 
and support agencies; enforcement of ethical standards in Congress; 
application of laws to Congress; bicameral and legislative-executive 
branch relations; and the use of information resources and technology 
in Congress.
  Defeating the previous question provides one of the best 
opportunities to prove our critics wrong and bring about real 
congressional reforms this year.
  The debate yesterday on the insurance redlining bill showed how our 
present committee system breeds gridlock and undermines efforts to 
modernize our Nation's financial system. How many more contentious 
floor battles will be necessary before we recognize that the internal 
structure of the House undermines consensus, accountability, and public 
credibility?
  Mr. Speaker, the work on the congressional reform bill is done and 
we're ready to go. As Chairman Hamilton said in a June 30 letter to 
Chairman Moakley, ``It appears to me that work on the entire package is 
far enough along that splitting up the package is not necessary, and 
thus the whole package can be considered before the August recess.''

                    [From Roll Call, July 18, 1994]

                            Who Lost Reform?

       One week ago in this space, we confessed to being on the 
     verge of declaring the reform effort to the Joint Committee 
     on the Organization of Congress a total failure. Today, we 
     are doing so. What happened in just a few short days? Two 
     things.
       First, Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash) pledged to bring to a 
     vote prior to the August recess one portion of the 
     recommendations of the Joint Committee: the application of 
     private-sector laws to Congress. The rest of the package, he 
     acknowledged, would almost certainly have to be put off. 
     Perhaps until after August recess. Perhaps until next year. 
     Perhaps never. We don't know because he wouldn't say.
       Second, and perhaps more significantly, was Foley's 
     response--or lack thereof--to a plea from Reps. Lee Hamilton 
     (D-Ind) and David Dreier (R-Calif), the House chair and vice 
     chair of the reform panel, to keep the package in one piece 
     rather than divide it. In a letter dated June 30, Hamilton 
     told Foley, ``If the Joint Committee's package is divided, 
     the application of laws section will no longer function as a 
     valuable sweetener for reforms that are less popular, but 
     still necessary.'' Splitting up the reforms, Hamilton warned, 
     ``will kill the rest of the package.'' Foley never responded. 
     His answer, we suspect, would be this: ``Good.''
       The transparency of this reform end game doesn't make it 
     any less upsetting to watch. Foley and other Democratic 
     leaders were clearly never serious about reform. They've 
     stalled and stalled (the Joint Committee, after all, finished 
     its work last fall and was dissolved in December), and now 
     that stalling isn't practical for much longer, they're 
     preparing for a ``reform vote'' that will be nothing more 
     than election-year window-dressing. A vote on applying OSHA 
     and FOIA and a host of other fair labor laws to the Hill 
     isn't the problem. The problem is what won't be voted on.
       Congressional coverage is an idea whose time has already 
     come. In recent years, both the House and the Senate have 
     recognized that fact, including Congress in the Americans 
     With Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and 
     other such bills. This year's Congressional coverage vote 
     will merely speed up the process and--hopefully--provide for 
     a more effective enforcement mechanism than the current House 
     and Senate Offices of Fair Employment Practices.
       But what about other meaningful Congressional reforms that 
     the public was led to expect from the Joint Committee? 
     Changes like a more rational system of committee jurisdiction 
     than the current patchwork approach? Like a truly ``family 
     friendly'' schedule that would enable Members to get their 
     work done during regular hours? Or like strict new limits on 
     the number of committee and subcommittee assignments?
       These, apparently, will fall by the wayside. They should 
     not. Congress had a chance to clean up its act on its own--
     responding to the clear message voters sent in 1992 that they 
     wanted such change. Now that Congress has blown it, the 
     voters may not be so charitable. Since when did changing 
     work-place rules constitute meaningful reform of the 
     legislative process?
       ``Gridlock'' is a nasty word to many on the Hill, but we 
     can't think of a better label for this sorry reform process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray). All time of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] has expired.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. 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 this Congress--3 years of declining 
Federal budget deficits. But we cannot rest; we must continue battling 
the deficit until victory is ours.
  Mr. Speaker, entitlements are a huge portion of our budget. We cannot 
ignore them if we truly want to balance our budget. The process 
contemplated by the Budget Control Act is designed to force the 
President and Congress to consider trends in entitlement spending and 
if that spending exceeds the targets, decide consciously how to react. 
This process does not require any cuts in entitlements. The President 
could recommend no program changes if he found economic conditions 
warranted no reductions in the various programs, or no tax increases, 
at that point in time.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is 
proposing, that is, amending the resolution to make in order an 
amendment to the Budget Control Act consisting of the text of H.R. 
3801, the Legislative Reorganization Act, is not permissible under 
House precedents. Such an amendment would not be germane to the 
resolution and would surely be ruled out on a point of order.
  The gentleman well 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 H.R. 4604 
simply will not work.
  I urge all Members to support the rule so we can consider this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DERRICK. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
recorded vote, if ordered, may be taken on the question of adoption of 
the resolution if the previous question is ordered.
  The vote is on ordering the previous question.
  This will be a 15-minute vote, and it will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 180, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               YEAS--245

     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
     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
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--180

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     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
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     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
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brooks
     Carr
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Whitten

                              {time}  1235

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

                          ____________________