[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4907, FULL BUDGET DISCLOSURE ACT OF 
                                  1994

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 512 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 512

       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. 4907) to reform the concept of baseline 
     budgeting. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     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 the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Rules now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. No other amendment shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed, 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, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. If more than one 
     of the amendments printed in 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 amendment 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 committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 512 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 4907, the Full Budget Disclosure Act of 1994. The 
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides for 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.
  After general debate, it will be in order under the rule to consider 
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now 
printed in the bill. The substitute will be considered as read.
  No amendments are in order except those printed in House Report 103-
689, to be considered in the following order under a king-of-the-hill 
procedure: First, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be 
offered by Representative Penny, or Representative Stenholm, or 
Representative Kasich, or a designee; and second, the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to be offered by Representative Spratt or a 
designee. Should both amendments be adopted, only the second amendment 
adopted will be reported to the House.
  Each substitute is considered as read and debatable for 30 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The 
amendments are not subject to further amendment and all points of order 
against the amendments are waived.
  Finally, the resolution provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Full Budget Disclosure Act of 1994 is designed to 
improve our budget process precisely as its short title suggests: by 
requiring full budget disclosure. The official title of H.R. 4907 is 
``A Bill to Reform the Concept of Baseline Budgeting.'' I can assure 
the Members the bill will do just that.
  To the extent they have the time and inclination to follow it at all, 
most Americans find the Federal budget process difficult to comprehend 
at best. Part of the problem is our confusing terminology; we just 
don't use the same budgetary terms and concepts that ordinary people 
do.
  We have fiscal years rather than calendar years. We have 
discretionary spending and mandatory spending. We have appropriations 
bills and we have authorization bills. We have on-budget and off-budget 
programs. We have the deficit and we have the national debt. We have 
countless other terms that we throw around here. But I dare say 
probably the most difficult budget concept for ordinary Americans to 
understand is our notion of a budget baseline.
  Under the law, when the President submits his budget to the Congress, 
and the Congress prepares its congressional budget, they start from 
something called a ``current policy baseline.'' That baseline assumes 
for the budget year and subsequent years a continuation of the current 
spending level for programs and services, adjusted for inflation and 
certain other technical factors.
  Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a current 
policy baseline. After all, every American appreciates how inflation 
erodes the purchasing power of his dollars over time. All Americans 
know the same number of dollars won't buy today what they bought 10 
years ago, or even last year.
  This is why the law provides cost-of-living adjustments to Social 
Security benefits. If we did not give cost-of-living adjustments, 
social security benefits would over time lose much of their value, and 
recipients would lose much of their income, even though the number of 
dollars in their checks wouldn't actually drop. Those checks would buy 
less and less in the future as inflation eroded their purchasing power.
  Well, inflation erodes the purchasing power of Federal tax revenues 
too. Any given number of Federal tax dollars does not buy the same 
quantity of goods and services today that it bought 10 years ago, or 
even last year. As a result, it takes more dollars to repair a mile of 
Federal highway, buy uniforms for soldiers and sailors, and to maintain 
national parks. Government must adjust to the same inflation that 
households do, and the current policy baseline helps policymakers to 
understand inflation's effect on Government.
  But use of the current policy baseline has one drawback: it makes 
more difficult comparisons of how spending changes from year to year in 
actual terms. It is the problem H.R. 4907 is designed to solve.
  Under the bill, the President and the Congress would have to include 
an additional baseline, a current funding baseline, in their budget 
documents. The current funding baseline would start from last year's 
spending level and would not be adjusted for inflation.
  This additional baseline would allow people to see and understand how 
various budget proposals would change spending from year to year in 
constant dollars, without taking inflation into account.
  By comparing proposed spending to the two baselines, for example, 
policymakers and the public could both understand that a budget 
proposal for a given program might very well represent an increase over 
last year in actual dollars, but not enough to keep pace with 
inflation--or effectively a cut in the program.
  Or people could see that a proposal might represent an increase in 
actual dollars over the amount needed to keep pace with inflation, or 
effectively an expansion of the program.
  In addition, H.R. 4907 will require the Congressional Budget Office 
to include its annual report to the budget committees a comparison to 
current spending levels, and an analysis of the causes of increased 
spending in mandatory programs due to cost-of-living adjustments, 
changes in beneficiaries, higher health-care costs, and other factors. 
This provision will help us better understand the reasons for growth in 
those programs, commonly called entitlements.
  I am convinced H.R. 4907 will improve the budget process, and that it 
will help both policymakers and ordinary Americans to understand that 
process better. I urge all Members to support the bill and the rule, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  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 matter.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, one of the very real problems with our current 
process is that Congress can get away with accounting tricks that would 
actually shock most people who are responsible for family budgets or 
even running a small business.
  That may not be exciting news, but it is important news because 
accountability is an awful big problem around here. So I think this is 
an important subject.
  The confusion that stems from what we call baseline budgeting is very 
serious. I suspect most people do not understand what a charade it 
really is. No one knows when a cut is really a cut or whether it is 
just a slowdown in the ever-growing spending we do around here but it 
is still more spending than we did last year.
  It is very, very easy for Congress to mask the big spending increases 
by claiming that we are just maintaining the baseline. When Americans 
hear that word, that phrase ``maintaining the baseline,'' watch out, 
watch your pocketbooks, because what that means is that is code for 
spending more of your tax dollars.
  So I am glad that the House is going to have a chance today to 
address this issue of what baseline really means and how we are going 
to be more accountable if we pass this very, very small improvement 
that has been suggested.
  Unfortunately, as is the case for the so-called Emergency Spending 
Control Act, which we might actually be taking up next on the floor if 
we stick to the present schedule, which is presently posted in the 
cloakroom if it has not already been rescheduled yet by now; if we 
stick with that, we will find the same thing in the Emergency Spending 
Control.
  The rule we are proceeding under is a lot less than ideal reform. In 
fact, it is sort of a token. I do not like the rule, but I am not going 
to call for a ``no'' vote on the rule, but because the rule does allow 
for consideration of, I think, a very much improved substitute, the 
Penny-Kasich-Stenholm substitute. But I have got to say the same 
concerns that are about both this rule on budget language and on the 
spending language, once again we are waiving all points of order 
without an explanation of what possible violations the bill contains. 
That is a bad idea.
  Then we are stacking the deck against the substitute amendment by 
following the dreaded king-of-the-hill procedure. Again it is one where 
the original bill will be considered as the final amendment in order to 
secure preferential treatment. Putting that in English for those who do 
not follow the inside-the-beltway rule lingo, we are stacking the deck 
to defeat an amendment which would make this bill a lot better.
  Finally, I think we all recognize that this is yet another piece in 
the A-to-Z buy-off package.
  It is a mixed blessing to have this much-needed debate under these 
circumstances. I think this is one of several that were designed to let 
some steam off the pressure for the A-to-Z package, which I understand 
is still a few votes short of the number necessary to bring it to the 
floor.
  I wish I could say that even if we approve this, that we would 
accomplish something that A-to-Z could accomplish; there is no 
comparison. A-to-Z would do ever so much more in dealing with spending 
cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the coming debate because I believe 
that we will be able to demonstrate both the need to change the current 
baseline standard and why the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm substitute is far 
stronger and a more responsible way to proceed if we are really going 
to get serious about addressing cutting spending around here.

                                  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).............................................           91      25         27       66         73 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Aug. 10, 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.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           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)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Sanibel, 
FL, for yielding me this time. And let me apologize in advance for the 
soft spoken gentleman from South Carolina and for the very 
distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, FL and for myself because we have 
to speak in a new language, not English. I will speak in a new 
language, not English, which is called Stengelese.
  My colleagues all remember Casey Stengel. Well, if one is going to 
explain the budget process of this Congress, he has to speak in 
Stengelese, because nobody is going to understand it. And now my 
colleagues know the rest of this story, why the budget process in this 
House does not work.
  Let me just say I have some concerns about this modified open rule. 
First, it contains a king-of-the-hill amendment process that says the 
last substitute adopted is the one reported back to the House, instead 
of having a normal amendment process that allows for the strongest 
amendment to prevail. Under the normal amendment process, Mr. Speaker, 
the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm substitute, which I support, would be offered 
to the Spratt amendment, perfecting it. If the amendment prevails, it 
prevails, and that is the way it should be. If the amendment loses, 
then Spratt wins, and that is the way that it should be.
  What is wrong with that? That makes common sense.
  Instead we have a Spratt bill, a Spratt amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, and then a Penny substitute, and then a Spratt substitute, 
all in that order. Does anybody out there listening understand what I 
just said? I do not think so. Maybe in the Democrat leadership's 
version of penny ante poker three Spratts beat a penny every time, but 
in the old fashioned version of democracy that I believe in, the 
amendment getting the most votes ought to win on the floor of this 
House.
  Believe me, if the day ever comes when one of these Democrat king-of-
the-hill rules results in a weaker amendment being reported to the 
House, there will be a bipartisan uproar like my colleagues have never 
heard before. The king will be seen to have no clothes, and naked power 
will be exposed in its rawest form. Mark my word on that; it is going 
to happen.
  The second reason for my concern is that we are dealing with these 
minor budget bills individually, instead of debating a comprehensive 
congressional reform bill, which is what we should be spending our time 
on this week. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say I support the 
Penny-Kasich-Stenholm substitute over the three identical Spratts. The 
Penny substitute contains more meaningful ways to deal with the 
problems and perceptions that stem from our current baseline budgeting 
than the Spratt substitutes do.
  And discussion of baseline budgeting must seem very inside-baseball 
to most of our constituents.
  But, if we told them this is really about ``truth-in-budgeting'' they 
will begin to understand the importance of this debate.
  The American people know that we play a lot of games around here with 
our budgets, and they get thoroughly confused when we claim, on the one 
hand, that we are reducing spending, and yet they see spending continue 
to go up and up and up.
  ``How can this be?'' they ask.
  And we respond, ``The baseline made me do it; it's in the law.''
  We measure our spending actions against what we expect something to 
cost in the future and not against what we are now spending out of our 
pocket. So, if we change a law to restrain the future growth rate of 
spending, we can say we are saving money, but that is not the same as 
reducing spending.
  Mr. Speaker, when my constituents think about their household budget 
and this is really what this debate is all about, just listen to this 
when my constituents think about their household budgets, they measure 
their level of spending this year against how much they spent last 
year. That is the logical way to do it. If they were planning to spend 
25 percent more this year than last, and then they trim that budget to 
spend just 15 percent more, that's still a 15-percent increase in 
spending.
  When Congress cuts its spending, its anticipated spending, from a 25-
percent increase down to a 15-percent increase, it claims it has 
reduced spending by 40 percent, when actually we have increased 
spending by 15 percent.
  That is the whole crux of the baseline budgeting problem.
  The Spratt substitutes before us today would try to deal with this 
problem by creating two baselines: one based on current policy levels, 
which is what we use now; and one based on current funding levels for 
discretionary spending, but with projected funding levels for mandatory 
spending. Boy, that sure sounds like ``Stengelese.'' In other words, 
even though this new baseline is called the current funding baseline, 
it still uses current policy projections for mandatory spending.
  So, unfortunately, this bill creates a new credibility problem for us 
with a baseline that is not entirely what it says it is.
  Mr. Speaker, Yogi Berra, who also played for Casey Stengel, might 
have said, ``If you try to run two baselines at the same time, you're 
going to split your pants.''
  Mr. Speaker, I fear the American people will split their sides 
laughing when they see us trying to run two baselines simultaneously 
and then claim we are clarifying rather than confusing the game 
further. It should be both a pants-splitting and side-splitting 
exercise that will not cover us in glory.
  Now I prefer the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm substitute, which sticks to a 
single baseline but modifies it to eliminate the inflation adjuster for 
discretionary spending--as does the Spratt substitute in one of its 
baselines.
  Inflating discretionary spending is not really current policy since 
annual appropriations are not permanent law.
  At the same time, neither the Spratt nor Penny substitutes alter the 
definition of current services for mandatory programs in any of the 
baselines contained in those amendments. I think that is appropriate 
because those are commitments made in permanent law to our Social 
Security recipients, to our veterans programs, to government retirees, 
and others.
  We will still have that current policy or current services measure 
for those mandatory programs under both the Spratt and Penny 
approaches.
  Now let me just say this:
  The Penny-Kasich-Spratt substitute tells our Budget Committees to 
begin their negotiations on the annual budget from the current levels 
of spending in all programs--mandatory and discretionary, so that we 
can better see and understand what is being increased or decreased and 
why it is being done. In that way, we in turn can better pinpoint where 
our real problems are and what we should do about them.
  Mr. Speaker, the ultimate solution to our public perception and 
credibility problem when it comes to budgeting cannot be solved by a 
law. The people do not read our budget documents.
  It is really a matter for the President, the Congress, and yes, the 
media, to level with the American people about our final budget 
actions, and not play games with all these baselines to claim we have 
reduced spending when we have only reduced its growth.
  Let me say that one more time: To claim we have reduced spending when 
actually all we have done is reduce growth does not cut a penny out of 
this doggone budget.
  In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, truth-in-budgeting can only be 
achieved by telling the truth in our ongoing political conversation 
with the American people. That may be asking too much, but to do 
otherwise will only further erode our institutional respect and 
credibility.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] who I have great respect for.
  Mr. SPRATT. The feeling is mutual.
  Just one question. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is 
saying we are ready to vote, but one question: You described our 
baseline as providing for inflation due to COLA's implicit in the 
mandatory spending programs and entitlement programs----
  Mr. SOLOMON. With the two baselines, right.
  Mr. SPRATT. Is the gentleman aware that the Stenholm-Penny-Kasich 
baseline also provides a COLA for entitlement programs?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, as a matter of fact, I called attention to that as 
well, and they both do, in the gentleman's Spratt amendment and the 
Penny baseline, yes.
  Mr. SPRATT. I ask, ``Don't you think that confuses people, that there 
is a lack of consistency here, whereas it would back our inflation on 
the one hand, include it for some programs that include it for others? 
Is that a baseline since it has one definition for one type of 
program?''
  Mr. SOLOMON. I really tried not to talk in Stengelese and point out 
that four of yours have that, two of theirs, and we really need to be 
consistent.
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
for H.R. 4907, and in support of the Stenholm-Penny-Kasich amendment. 
This amendment is necessary to bring about any real reform. Without the 
amendment, we are simply taking the next step in the Democratic 
leadership's effort to prevent any real reform in the institution or 
its processes.
  We have seen this in every popular reform that has been 
overwhelmingly supported by the American people. The leadership has put 
off consideration as long as possible, when public opinion finally 
forces them to debate and restructure the rules and do their best to 
prevent the true reform.
  Look back at the debate on the balanced budget amendment, the debate 
on line item veto, today's debate on eliminating the confusing and 
misleading practice of baseline budgeting.
  Baseline budgeting is at the heart of what is wrong with how we do 
business here. The practice feeds the spending habit of an activist 
Congress and administration, while allowing those folks to claim to 
have made cuts in spending, when in fact it is an increase. The 
American people know that despite all the rhetoric coming from the 
administration that we cut spending, all we have really done is reduced 
the increases. Spending has not gone down. Spending has not been cut. 
In fact, spending continues to go up at a steady pace, and the deficit 
is projected to follow that route as well.
  Stenholm-Penny-Kasich will bring a little common sense to the budget 
process. No longer will we be allowed to call spending increased cuts. 
Slowing down the projected increases has never been a cut in my book. 
With this change, the budget process will indicate that.
  Mr. Speaker, the Government has not been honest with how the 
taxpayers' dollars are spent. We have a chance to make a small step 
forward, restoring some trust today. I encourage any colleagues to vote 
yes on Stenholm-Penny-Kasich and against the Spratt status quo 
amendment.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 8 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 4907, the Full Budget 
Disclosure Act of 1994. This act is six pages long, full of dense 
language, whatever you wish to call it in budget parlance. Let me just 
cut through the thick language, the bramble bush, the budget jargon, 
and get to the basics and say in a nutshell what this bill does.
  Essentially this bill simply does this: It establishes two basic 
baselines for the budget format. First, it establishes a current 
funding baseline. This baseline, the current funding baseline, would be 
equal to the funding outlays that a function or program was receiving 
in that current year, the most recent year at hand. It is equivalent to 
what CBO would call a freeze, staying in place.
  In addition, this bill would require that the budget be formatted to 
show in addition to the current funding baseline, a current policy 
baseline equal to what we now most commonly call a current services 
baseline.
  A current services baseline, as we all know, is what it takes to keep 
a program serving the same eligible beneficiaries, providing them the 
same level of benefits adjusted for inflation in the next budget year. 
So we would have two baselines: a current funding baseline, and a 
current policy baseline.
  This bill requires the President, the Congressional Budget Office, 
and both budget committees to give Congress, us, and the public, both 
the current funding baseline and the current policy baseline for budget 
functions and for specific programs.
  The bill also requires that each of these offices compare the 
proposed funding for the next fiscal year with both baselines, both 
current funding and current policy.
  As I think we have seen from the previous debate, there are a lot of 
similarities between this bill, H.R. 4907, and the Stenholm-Penny-
Kasich substitute. In fact, I used the substitute as a basic when I 
drafted this bill, H.R. 4907. Both require the President, CBO, and the 
budget committees to provide current year funding for programs and both 
require comparisons between current funding and proposed funding. There 
is no difference there.
  In the end, both have the same result. Both will make it more 
difficult to call a funding increase a spending cut if it is below your 
current services, because you will have readily available, formatted, 
displayed in budget presentations, what is the current funding level in 
the current year, and anyone who claims that he is cutting spending can 
be readily contradicted by referencing the budget documents that will 
be submitted by the committee to the Congress, and by the CBO as well.
  Our bill, however, as I have said, sets up two baselines. Penny-
Kasich would prevent this kind of double talk by having one baseline, 
which would replace the current services baseline.
  I think it is important to emphasize what we are talking about is 
purely presentation. We are not talking about procedure. We are not 
talking about process. We are not talking about requiring different 
votes or different processes for increasing or decreasing spending. We 
are simply talking about how you present a proposed budgetary increase 
or proposed budgetary decrease, and what lines will be available, what 
baselines, what frames of reference will be available to determine 
whether or not it is an increase or a decrease.
  My bill differs from the substitute in this fundamental respect: The 
substitute requires only information about current funding. It can even 
be read to say that Congress should not be given, not provided with, 
current policy baselines. Section 102(f) of the substitute states that 
OMB, in making assessments, shall not include an adjustment for 
inflation for programs and activities subject to discretionary 
appropriations. The substitute also provides that the starting points 
for any deliberations in the budget of each House on the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the next fiscal year shall be the 
estimated level of outlays for the current year and each function and 
subfunction. Any increases or decreases in the congressional budget for 
the next fiscal year shall be from such estimated levels.
  I am not quite sure what that means, a starting point for any 
deliberation. I think, frankly, that Congress and the public should be 
able to find out readily, as I have said, how much actual spending is 
going to increase in a new budget over and above current levels of 
spending. My bill, 4907, provides for that, clearly and distinctly.
  But I also think Congress and the public should know what it will 
cost to keep the budget running in place, what it will cost to keep 
programs like Social Security, Medicare, Head Start and defense funded 
at current policy levels, doing next year no more or less than what it 
is doing this year. My bill also provides for that. The substitute does 
not.
  So I think my bill is a distinct improvement on the current process, 
but it does not take away from us something that everybody finds 
useful. That is why we have it.
  My bill provides a baseline which we in the Congress, members of the 
budget committees, the Committee on Appropriations, the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, all have found 
extremely useful to have for analytical purposes. That is a current 
services baseline. It does not allow one to have just this baseline and 
to ignore current funding, because it requires that both be provided. 
But it does continue to provide us with this very useful reference for 
determining whether or not we are keeping programs apace with inflation 
and with the growth in beneficiary populations.
  If we were to add, for example, $1 billion to Social Security in a 
given year, and in that given year inflation was 5 percent and 
beneficiary population growth was one million people, if we went back 
home and told our constituents that we had increased Social Security, I 
think they would look askance at us, because our Social Security 
benefits would probably be reduced if we did no more than $1 billion, 
given the growth in beneficiary population and given inflation.
  We need the current policy baseline to tell us exactly what is 
required in order to keep existing programs on parity with existing 
levels of service. It is a very useful baseline, and I do not think 
regardless of what we do, if we were to pass the substitute today and 
send it to the other body and pass it there and have it enacted into 
law, the current services baseline will not go away. It will still be 
sought by the Committee on the Budget when we have budgets brought to 
the floor, whether they are resolutions or appropriations bills, these 
projections will still be there, and not just as to entitlements. We 
use current services all the time in the Committee on Armed Services 
because it shows what it takes to keep our defense on parity with the 
existing levels of readiness and force structure.
  So I think it is something that we cannot uninvent, something that is 
not going away, because it is useful to everybody involved in this 
process, and given the fact that it is so useful, I think we ought to 
make it part of the process, but keep it honest, keep it in perspective 
by also requiring the current funding baseline to be provided as well.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm bipartisan amendment 
to get rid of baseline budgeting.
  I extend my congratulations to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] as well with whom it is my privilege to work as the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs. 
I am glad we are all here arguing about the best way to get rid of 
baseline budgeting.
  I happen to believe that really getting rid of it is the answer 
rather than tolerating it and keeping it around.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I introduced a resolution 
abolishing it successfully. It became part of the budget we adopted 
here in the Congress most recently. It was adopted over in the Senate. 
So by a nonbinding resolution we have already accomplished what our 
colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], 
want to accomplish here today, but we have to put it into law and make 
sure that we can enforce it.
  We all know what a scam baseline budgeting is. The real question is, 
Where did it come from? The answer is that the solons of the spending 
status quo want us to believe that we have cut spending to the bone. 
They want to keep talking about cutting spending when in fact it is 
going up.
  The truth is, according to the President's own figures, that spending 
this year is rising dramatically. And very year for the foreseeable 
future, spending will rise dramatically. It will grow from more than 
$1.4 trillion this year to more than $1.5 trillion next year. That is 
an increase of $100 billion, more than $1.6 trillion in 1996 and $1.8 
trillion in 1998. Collectively, altogether, that comprises the largest 
deficit spending increase in any 5-year period in American history.
  So how is it that we say we are cutting spending and yet spending is 
going up and up and up?
  The answer is, we are using this smoke and mirrors method called 
baseline budgeting by which we cut not real spending but from an 
inflated baseline.
  Let me give an example of how baseline budgeting distorts the 
language. We talk about spending cuts as if they are real but they are 
not. Let us say that last Labor Day you had 5 hot dogs and you enjoyed 
the 5 hot dogs so much that this year you decide you are going to have 
10 hot dogs. But your friends tell you, you would be a glutton. You 
need to cut back and your doctor advises you, you have to stop your 
intake of fat and cholesterol. So you settle for seven.
  Under baseline budgeting, as you scarf down that 7th hot dog with the 
mustard and relish dripping from your chin, you can congratulate 
yourself for having cut your hot dog consumption by 30 percent because 
you are only having 7 instead of the 10 you wanted. Some of us here in 
the Congress would be quick to point out that in fact the seven hot 
dogs you are eating this year represent a 40-percent increase over the 
five you had last year.
  If you work here in Congress, you are used to the status quo, you 
would say, ``I am sorry, you just do not understand real fat and 
calorie reduction.''
  That is the way baseline budgeting works. It does not reflect 
reality. It is in fact like Hollywood. It is total fiction. It reminds 
me of a trip to Universal Studios. You might say that the phony budget 
numbers we get from baseline budgeting are what Arnold Schwarzenegger 
would call true lies.
  Baseline budgeting, to carry the analogy uncomfortably further, is a 
clear and present danger to our current system of representative 
government. Like the movies, this deceptive accounting practice has 
blown away our constituents' confidence in representative government. 
We need a simple and straightforward accounting system that even 
Forrest Gump could understand. If we do not adopt baseline budgeting, 
our noses, like Pinnochio, will continue to grow and grow, along with 
Government spending. And Bill Clinton will keep talking about cutting 
Government spending while it is increasing. I guess that would make him 
the Lion King.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows for debate on H.R. 
4907, the Full Budget Disclosure Act, and for two amendments thereto, 
one amendment, the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm amendment which would 
substitute for the language of the bill a hard freeze, as the baseline 
for Federal budgeting.
  The second amendment would be the separate amendment, which 
essentially would restore the language or reaffirm the language in the 
base bill.
  Under a king-of-the-hill process, it will be possible for Members to 
vote for our amendment and the Spratt amendment, but we strongly urge 
Members not to play that game. We have stronger language in our 
substitute. It would be deceptive to then vote as well for the Spratt 
amendment because, under the king-of-the-hill procedure, even though we 
may pass our amendment by a larger margin, a slim majority supporting 
the Spratt amendment would prevail at the end of the debate.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  I want the gentleman to know that we feel the same way. We tried to 
get the king of the hill changed to what we call the queen of the hill 
so that large a margin would prevail. Unfortunately, we were unable to 
succeed in the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the interest of a number of 
Members on the Committee on Rules in trying to protect our right to a 
fair fight on this issue.
  As is often the case around here, if there is a real threat posed by 
any amendment, then substitutes are made in order or a king-of-the-hill 
process is put in order in order to defeat the best efforts to propose 
alternative policy decisions. That is clearly what we are faced with 
today.
  Nonetheless, a yes vote and then a no vote will preserve the 
strongest language and we urge Members to vote in that fashion.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, one more time I think it is absolutely 
critical that we emphasize that we want to vote ``yes'' on the Penny 
amendment and an absolute vote ``no'' on the Spratt amendment. Because 
under this king of the hill, we would get rid of the baselines and have 
only one commonsense budgeting factor. If we adopted that and then 
adopted Spratt, we would be defeating ourselves.
  So this king of the hill is something that Members do not understand 
very well, but clearly we do not want to vote for all alternatives. We 
want to vote for one, and that is the Penny alternative.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those remarks.
  The process we operate under today, this king-of-the-hill process, is 
another Washington-based process. It may make sense to people inside 
the Capitol dome, but it is nonsense to most of the American public. It 
is appropriate that we have this nonsensical rule with a king-of-the-
hill vote, because we are dealing with a nonsensical budget process, a 
budget process that calls an increase a cut, a process that allows for 
an inflation adjustment in every part of the budget and only spending 
above the inflation adjustment is actually called an increase.
  We try to correct that with some commonsense budget reforms. It could 
be best described as truth in budgeting. It could best be described as 
truth in budgeting, because we present to the American public with our 
proposal a budget process that would measure every program by last 
year's spending level.
  In other words, a dime of increase in any program would be called an 
increase. A family does not plan their next year's budget based on an 
anticipated increase. Most families are not certain until the boss 
calls them in at the end of the year whether they are going to see a 
pay raise in their paychecks. Yet at the Federal level, we promise all 
of the programs and all of the beneficiaries that they will get an 
automatic increase from year to year.

                              {time}  2440

  It is absurd when you do not even know that the economy will grow, or 
that taxpayers will get pay raises, or that more revenue will come into 
the government, that the government promises all of the recipients, all 
of the programs, an increase year to year.
  We correct that by going to a hard freeze baseline on most programs 
in the budget, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from South Carolina called 
this purely presentation. This is more than that.
  By changing our budget baseline, we change the terms of the debate. 
We remove the spending bias. We remove the assumption that every 
program must automatically be increased, and we start from a hard 
freeze baseline, forcing us to admit that increases are increases, 
forcing us to justify inflation adjustments if we feel they are 
necessary. This will shift the burden of proof.
  Current funding, current policy, current services, entitlements, 
mandatory discretionary, nondiscretionary, we have so many terms that 
govern our budget debate on Capitol Hill it is no wonder the American 
public cannot understand what Congress is doing. Most of the confusion 
is deliberate. We do not want them to understand, because it allows us 
to spend more and more, while pretending that we are not increasing 
spending levels.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to end the chicanery. We have to end the 
charade. We have to call a freeze a freeze. We have to call a cut a 
cut. That is the fundamental premise of the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm 
amendment. When we get down to debate on the amendments, I urge a yes 
vote on the Penny-Kasich-Stenholm amendment, a no vote on the Spratt 
amendment, and then a yes vote on final passage of H.R. 4907.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for the purposes of making an inquiry.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Penny] a question?
  The gentleman continues to refer to his baseline as a hard freeze, 
and yet in the ``Dear Colleague'' he sent out on this particular 
substitute, he says:

       When the baseline must be used for 5-year projections, the 
     automatic increase for discretionary programs is limited, but 
     the baseline for entitlements continues to include COLAs.

  So there is a baseline that is a freeze for discretionary programs, 
but not a freeze for entitlement programs.
  Mr. PENNY. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. SPRATT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The gentleman would 
also acknowledge that on the entitlement question, the language in his 
bill does not differ from the language in our bill.
  The point is that the cost-of-living increase in the entitlement area 
is mandated by law. We acknowledge that. But unlike the gentleman, we 
force a full acknowledgement of that fact in the budget baseline each 
year, so that even though there is an increase built in, we explain why 
that increase has occurred, and then it is open to question as to 
whether we want to honor that obligation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, basically there is no difference between our 
current funding baseline and the single baseline the gentleman would 
require, is there?
  Mr. PENNY. On the entitlement side, that would be correct, but on the 
discretionary or the domestic and defense side of the budget, and that 
deals with $500 billion, we do apply a hard freeze.
  Mr. SPRATT. So do we.
  Mr. Speaker, let me continue this COLA question. I think we are 
clarifying something that Members need to understand.
  Mr. Speaker, our baseline would freeze discretionary spending. Our 
baseline adopts what CBO calls a hard freeze. It does accommodate COLAs 
for entitlement programs in the out years, but otherwise it freezes 
spending in place, so basically our current funding baseline is the 
same as the single baseline that the gentleman would enshrine in his 
bill?

  Mr. PENNY. If the gentleman will yield further, I would concede that 
his current funding baseline is the same as our hard freeze baseline.He 
also allows for a second current services baseline, which would 
continue to confuse the debate.
  In other words, in the gentleman's plan, he has two baselines, one 
that allows the inflation adjustments and the other increases to be 
assumed, and that would continue the obfuscation and the confusion that 
dominates the budget debate today. We want to get down to one simple 
baseline, and that would be a hard freeze.
  Mr. SPRATT. If I could reclaim my time, so I have a bit left; 
however, our current funding baseline is the same baseline that the 
gentleman would provide, so we are going to provide that baseline in 
the budget presentations. The gentleman has no dispute with that?
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I have no dispute with that. What I have a 
dispute with is the fact that the gentleman adds to the confusion by 
not having one simple baseline, but instead two baselines.
  Mr. SPRATT. We think it adds to clarification, rather than confusion. 
Everybody can tell the difference between the two baselines.
  I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding the additional 
time to me.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
champion budgeteer, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
South Carolina for trying to develop a line of confusion in this 
discussion. Let us be clear about what we do.
  Mr. Speaker, in the area of entitlements, we do not really have a 
baseline in entitlements, but it is the law, as the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny] has said, it is the law that forces those to go 
up. I would remind the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] that 
just earlier this year we offered several proposals to eliminate the 
automatic adjustments, which was opposed by the Majority of this House, 
including the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Now, let us forget entitlements, because those increases go up by 
law. We have made an effort already this year to try to stop that 
automatically. We were defeated in that. Mr. Speaker, the only place 
where we really have a baseline is in the area of discretionary. What 
we are arguing is, we ought to base next year's budgeting based on the 
year before. We do not need to have more than one baseline.
  I remember when Tina Turner sang the song ``We Don't Need Another 
Hero.'' We do not need another baseline, we only need one. That is 
based on the spending of the previous year.
  We should not be confused about what we are trying to do here. If we 
want a budget next year based on the previous year, we vote for Penny. 
If we want to do budgeting next year based on last year's plus another 
baseline, and get everything all confused, we vote for Spratt.
  Mr. Speaker, I would argue to the House that if we want to do this 
like they do on the seat of the tractors in east Texas, as the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is fond of saying, a commonsense 
budgeting approach, or in Westerville, or up in Minnesota, where the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] is from, we budget on the basis of 
the previous year, not the previous year plus inflation.
  Vote for the Penny amendment. Let us end the confusion.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
  (Mr. McCURDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Penny-Kasich-
Stenholm amendment, and urge a yes vote on that.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding, as the gentleman has related to 
me, that when we finish this rule and we go to the debate on this rule, 
that we will in fact then be proceeding on the crime rule?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that with 
authority.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] could answer? Is it the intention of the House, 
after this, to move directly to the crime rule?
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DERRICK. That is correct, Mr. Speaker,
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, immediately upon finishing the vote on this 
particular rule, we will then move to the crime rule, is that correct?
  Mr. DERRICK. We were hoping maybe not to have a recorded vote on 
this, so we could move right on into it. That is correct.
  Mr. WALKER. I think there are some of us who are concerned about the 
king-of-the-hill nature of this rule, and would prefer to have an 
opportunity to vote ``no'' on that, because we think that that is a bad 
kind of thing to have the House appear to have adopted unanimously, but 
I just wanted to clarify where we were in the schedule.
  At the completion of that particular vote, Mr. Speaker, then we can 
assume that the next order of business will be to take up the crime 
rule?
  Mr. DERRICK. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is our 
intention at this time.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GOSS Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Penny-Stenholm-
Kasich amendment on baseline budgeting.
  As sponsor of H.R. 323, a bill to eliminate the use of the so-called 
current services budget baseline, I have been trying to focus attention 
on the issue of fraudulent baseline budgeting for years.
  I am gratified that my bill has 124 cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisle.
  We are all too familiar with how the process works. Every year, 
Congress builds an automatic increase into all Government spending 
programs. Whenever a spending increase does not reach the baseline 
level, it is called a cut.
  Congress uses such accounting deception to claim that it is cutting a 
specific program while actually increasing spending on it.
  This process builds a bias into the Federal budget for more spending 
and higher deficits. Real deficit reduction requires this budget 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, the Penny-Stenholm-Kasich amendment will let us finally 
get rid of the current services budget hoax and restore credibility to 
the Federal budget process.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think Members do a disservice to this body 
when they suggest that the Spratt proposal would bring ``confusion to 
the process.''
  What the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is proposing is 
very simple. It ought to be simple enough to understand even for a 
Member of Congress. What the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] 
is suggesting is very simply this: He suggests that instead of 
presenting the budget from one baseline, we present it from two, so 
that we have two perspectives on the same issue. That is all the Spratt 
amendment does. This has nothing whatsoever to do with how much is 
spent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how much is appropriated. 
It has nothing whatsoever to so with how much is made available in 
entitlements. It simply is a question of how we present the 
information.
  What Penny-Stenholm-Kasich would say is that we present it only one 
way, in terms of nominal dollars. What Spratt says is that we present 
it two ways: One from the perspective of the nominal dollar base and 
second from an inflationary adjusted base.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that when we are analyzing Social 
Security, for instance, that if we have an increase in the eligible 
population and if there is a large increase in inflation, it just might 
be helpful if we understand that the real effect of that is on the 
recipients. That is all the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] 
does. He suggests that instead of Congress being given one piece of 
information, instead of the public only being given one perspective, 
they be given two. I ask Members what on earth is wrong with that?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from the greater San Dimas, CA, area [Mr. 
Dreier], an esteemed and important member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule if for no other 
reason than the king-of-the-hill procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go through that process again.
  I understand that my friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Penny] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talked about the king-
of-the-hill procedure. It is absolutely nothing more than an attempt to 
obfuscate the issue of accountability. The way the king-of-the-hill 
procedure works is that we have one amendment that comes before us, and 
that is going to be the Penny amendment, and it could pass with 420 
votes. Following that, we could have the Spratt amendment which, based 
on the description that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] and 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] gave is obviously a weaker 
position, yet with 218 votes, that vote would be the one that would 
actually prevail, avoiding the issue of accountability, meaning that 
Members could vote, in fact, for the Penny amendment and they could do 
it knowing that if 218 votes are gleaned on the Spratt amendment at the 
end that, in fact, the Spratt amendment would carry.
  Mr. Speaker, this king-of-the-hill procedure is an absolutely 
ludicrous procedure. I offer regularly an amendment up in the Committee 
on Rules which simply says that if we are going to have this king-of-
the-hill procedure, what we should state is that the amendment which 
receives the highest number of votes here on the floor is the one that 
prevails. That is the only responsible way to deal with this. 
Unfortunately this rule is one which denies that right.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote and hope that my 
colleagues will join with me in opposing the rule so that we can bring 
back a fair and balanced approach which will give equal treatment to 
those who are proposing amendments.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, we have had a lot of discussion on 
the rule. I think that the goal of what we are trying to accomplish 
here is clarification. I think that anybody who has listened to this 
particular debate would understand just how confusing this particular 
subject is. If it is this confusing inside the Beltway, I can imagine 
how confusing it is out there in America for those who are trying to 
understand why we keep raising the annual debt and the deficit and we 
cannot seem to live within our means and are always having new tax 
proposals being presented to us by the majority.
  I think that anything that comes close to clarification on this is 
very important. I happen to agree that the Stenholm-Penny-Kasich 
amendment gets closest to what we need, to what I will call full budget 
disclosure. What I think we have got now is full budget confusion. I 
hope that that amendment is going to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel very much the same way as my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] who has just spoken, that we 
have stacked the deck so that it will not pass. That would be a shame, 
I think. One more time we will have taken a better solution, one that 
will actually lead to clarity in this. It does not solve the whole 
problem by any means but it adds some accountability, so it is a little 
harder to disguise what is really going on, it is a little harder to 
keep from the taxpayers what we are really doing here, and I think that 
openness and that sunshine would be very welcome. Certainly, it is the 
rules we use in Florida, and it is the rules I think we should use 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that the king-of-the-hill problem is a very 
serious one here and the blanket waiver protecting who-knows-what 
points of order is a serious question. I will not call for a vote, but 
I understand there are others on our side of the aisle and perhaps on 
the majority side of the aisle who are so upset about the king-of-the-
hill and the blanket waivers that they may call for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on this resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255, 
nays 178, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 393]

                               YEAS--255

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

                               NAYS--178

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Washington
       

                              {time}  1514

  Mr. PETRI and Mr. HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________