[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 301, SENSE 
               OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENTITLEMENT SPENDING

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I 
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 563

       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 concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) expressing the 
     sense of the Congress regarding entitlements. General debate 
     shall be confined to the concurrent resolution and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Government Operations. After general debate the concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule and shall be considered as read, and the question 
     on adopting the amendment numbered 1 in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as pending without intervening motion or debate. 
     No other amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each other amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment. All points of order against amendments printed in 
     the report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution for amendment, the Committee shall 
     rise and report the concurrent resolution to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent 
     resolution and amendments thereto to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  0950

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). 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 563 is a rule providing 1 
hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Government Operations Committee.
  The amendments are considered as read, are not subject to amendment, 
and are not subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  All points of order are waived against the amendments in the report. 
The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as 
ordered to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for a 
division of the question.
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 301 is a resolution 
expressing the sense of Congress that current trends in entitlement 
spending are not sustainable, and the Congress must act to resolve the 
long-term imbalance of the entitlement promises and available funds to 
ensure that today's debt does not fall unfairly on America's children.
  Today, entitlement spending and interest on the national debt 
together consume more than 60 percent of Federal outlays. That is 
double the percentage of just 25 years ago.
  The August 1994 interim report by the Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlements and Tax Reform concludes that unless appropriate policy 
changes are made, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on 
the national debt will consume all tax revenues collected by the 
Federal Government by the year 2012.
  The September 1994 study on reducing entitlement spending by the 
Congressional Budget Office found that in 1990, nearly half of all 
families in this country received benefits from one or more of the 11 
major entitlement programs. The value of these benefits averaged about 
$10,300.
  The conventional wisdom is that the Nation's budget deficit cannot be 
controlled without enacting reforms in entitlement spending.
  House Concurrent Resolution 301 will begin the debate on this 
pressing issue and the options that must be considered.
  Members will be asked to make hard choices on such questions as 
means-testing benefits, age qualifications, and cost-of-living 
adjustments.
  For many, the choices are politically difficult. But, it is a debate 
that this body must undertake. I urge the adoption of House Resolution 
563.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the pieces of the A-to-Z buyout continue to 
fall into place--one by one. By my count, we are about to check off the 
fourth of five demands made by the so-called deficit hawks in the 
majority who were promised all sorts of special floor votes if only 
they would withhold their signatures from the A-to-Z spending cut 
discharge petition. Today's serving of political cover comes in the 
form of a sense-of-Congress-resolution--AKA a completely nonbinding 
statement of principle.
  As a member of the President's Commission on Entitlement and Tax 
Reform, I wholeheartedly support the principle of laying the groundwork 
for the heavy lifting of reforming entitlements. In fact, I have spent 
many long hours this year in Commission hearings as we proceed toward a 
December due date for our recommendations. I do not think the work of 
that Commission should be underestimated or second-guessed before we 
have even had a chance to fulfill our mandate. Quite frankly, I believe 
today's effort is at best a waste of time and at worst a thinly-veiled 
attempt to allow Members a freebie feel-good, do-nothing vote less than 
5 weeks from election day.
  Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to using valuable floor time so 
close to the end of the session for this type of political exercise. 
But if we are going to proceed in this direction, the least we can do 
is make the process as open as possible so all Members have an equal 
chance to make this statement of principle mean a little bit more. At 
the moment what we have here is something akin to a one-man band--a 
bill drafted by Mr. Orton, fulfilling a leadership pledge to Mr. Orton, 
that received no committee hearing or markup, with amendments limited 
to those offered by Mr. Orton. As wise as Mr. Orton is on these 
matters, I firmly believe the Nation and this House could benefit from 
some broader input than just that of one Member.
  For instance, Mr. Kasich, the ranking member of the Budget Committee 
came before our Rules Committee to request an open rule that would 
allow him to offer language calling for a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution--something Americans strongly support and the minority 
has been seeking for years. But this request was denied. Mr. Barca, a 
member of the majority party, came to Rules seeking an amendment 
pertaining specifically to Medicare and means-testing. But that too was 
denied. And Mr. Sabo, the chairman of the Budget Committee, had 
originally offered a proposal of his own, that never saw the light of 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this resolution never was heard in committee, 
never went through the normal legislative process, and now its prime 
sponsors have apparently used some left-over leverage from the A-to-Z 
buyoff to secure a rule that turns normal procedures on their head. 
Instead of allowing all Members a chance to propose amendments to the 
base text and then vote on passage of the final product as amended--if 
amended, this rule ensures a vote on the base text of the resolution 
first--before any other amendments are considered.
  This convoluted process also precludes the minority from the 
customary motion to recommit with instructions. Why? Mr. Orton 
explained that this is because Members want a chance to vote for the 
generic policy statement, but might not be able to summon the political 
courage to support specific reform options, like means-testing for 
certain entitlements, or COLA reform, or changing the age threshold for 
entitlement benefits. Just how far will this House go in manipulating 
the rules of this House in order to protect its membership from casting 
the so-called tough votes? This is walking a very fine line between 
looking tough, but not too tough, as election day draws near. But the 
problem with walking a tightrope is that you can easily fall off--and I 
am afraid that is what the majority is about to do here today. Once 
Members go on record for some of these reform proposals--even though 
their votes today will not lead to any meaningful change--they should 
expect to be held accountable when the binding reform proposals start 
coming down the pike. Anyone who has looked at the data about 
entitlements and the entire Federal budget knows that day is coming 
sooner than we think.

  Members should be advised--this chicken is going to come home to 
roost.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule. This resolution and all its 
attendant rhetoric may boost some Members' short-term political 
fortunes, but it will do little to enhance the fortunes of our children 
and grandchildren. And so, once again, we will be less than candid with 
the American people about our true commitment to change.
  Mr. Speaker, I include data on consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 301 in the Committee on Rules and the comparative charts of 
open versus restrictive rules for the Record, as follows:

Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions Offered to Rule on H. 
         Con. Res. 301, Entitlements, Tuesday, October 4, 1994

       1. Motion Offered by Mr. Quillen for an Open Rule--Rep. 
     Quillen moves a one-hour open rule, with debate time 
     allocated to the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Government Operations Committee. Rejected: 4-5. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, 
     Wheat.
       2. Motion Offered by Mr. Solomon on Motion to Recommit--Mr. 
     Solomon moves to insert language to provide for one motion to 
     recommit, with or without instructions. Rejected: 4-4. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Gordon. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, 
     Slaughter.
       3. Motion Offered by Mr. Goss on Kasich Amendment--Mr. Goss 
     moves to make in order an amendment by Rep. Kasich of Ohio 
     expressing the sense of Congress that a Balanced Budget 
     Constitutional amendment should be passed to impose on 
     Congress the discipline necessary to achieve the goals of 
     reducing entitlement growth and debt. The amendment would not 
     be subject to amendment but debatable for 30 minutes divided 
     between the proponent and an opponent. Rejected: 4-6. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, 
     Slaughter.
       4. Motion Offered by Mr. Dreier on Barca Amendment--Mr. 
     Dreier moves to make in order the amendment by Rep. Barca of 
     Wisconsin expressing the sense of Congress that Medicare 
     premiums should be imposed on beneficiaries earning more than 
     $100,000. The amendment would not be subject to amendment but 
     debatable for 30 minutes divided between the proponent and an 
     opponent. Rejected: 3-6-1. Yeas: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Present: 
     Quillen. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       5. Motion Offered by Mr. Derrick to Report Rule--Mr. 
     Derrick moves to report a one-hour, modified closed rule, 
     making in order a vote on a substitute identical to the base 
     text prior to consideration of three amendments by Rep. 
     Orton, and denying a motion to recommit. Adopted: 6-4. Yeas: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon. Nays: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Not Voting: Hall, Wheat, 
     Slaughter.


      amendment offered by mr. quillen to rule on h. con. res. 301

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) expressing the sense 
     of the Congress regarding entitlements, and the first reading 
     of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. After 
     general debate which shall be confined to the resolution and 
     which shall not exceed one hour to be equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Government Operations, the resolution shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the 
     conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the resolution 
     to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
     and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.''.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Explanation: This amendment to the proposed rule provides 
     for a one-hour of general debate on the entitlement 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 301), controlled by the Government 
     Operations Committee, followed by an open amendment process 
     under the five-minute rule. Since the resolution was only 
     introduced last Friday and since Members were not given 
     advance notice to submit amendments to the Rules Committee, 
     this should be considered under an open amendment process.


amendment offered by mr. solomon to rule on motion to recommit h. con. 
                                res. 301

       In the last line, insert after the word ``motion'' the 
     following: ``except one motion to recommit, with or without 
     instructions,''.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Explanation: This would permit a motion to recommit with 
     instructions--the only opportunity under the rule as moved 
     for the minority to offer an amendment to the resolution.

                           *   *   *   *   *



 amendment to h. con. res. 301 or to the orton substitute, offered by 
                           mr. kasich of ohio

       At the end of the concurrent resolution (or at the end of 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order by 
     this resolution, if the substitute is adopted) add the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 2. It is the further sense of the Congress that, in 
     order to resolve the imbalance in entitlement promises and 
     resources and to reduce the debt as called for by this 
     resolution, a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment should 
     be passed by the Congress at the earliest possible date to 
     impose on the Congress the discipline needed to achieve these 
     goals.''.

              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).....          102      31         30       71         70 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Oct. 4, 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.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           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.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).  
                                           Authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Banking.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept.           N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Reorganization.                                                                                              
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994...  MO        H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste    22 (D-15; R-7)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994...  O         H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).  
H. Res. 562, Oct. 3, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 5044: Amer. Heritage      N/A.............  N/A.......................                                   
                                           Areas.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 563, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 301: SoC Re:      N/A.............  N/A.......................                                   
                                           Entitlements.                                                                                                
H. Res. 565, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        S. 455: Payments in Lieu of    N/A.............  N/A ......................                                   
                                           Taxes.                                                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time and join him in urging defeat of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it is exercises like this that give the term, sense of 
Congress an oxymoronic taint.
  Here we are in the final week of the Congress spending 4 hours or 
more on a so-called sense-of-Congress resolution that says entitlement 
spending trends are a problem, laying debt on our kids is bad, and 
Congress should do something about it. Well, good morning. Tell me 
something new.
  In the meantime, a major congressional reform bill continues to 
languish in the very same committee that brings us this rule. Only one 
of some 29 pending amendments have been disposed of in the markup on 
that reform bill, some 8 months after that bill was first introduced.
  How long has this resolution been pending in a committee? Just 4 
days. It was introduced last Friday. It was referred to the Government 
Operations Committee over the weekend, and then, without any 
opportunity for that committee to report, it was taken up in the Rules 
Committee on Monday and granted this rule yesterday. In short, this 
rule discharges the Government Operations Committee from any charge of 
paternity.
  What are we doing? What are our priorities? Have we taken leave of 
our senses?
  Mr. Speaker, let's not pull any punches as to what is going on here. 
This is all part of the so-called A-Z buyout deal in which several 
Democrats promised not to sign a discharge petition calling for real 
spending cuts, if they in turn were allowed to bring certain budgetary 
matters to this floor.
  We've already considered most of the other items including expedited 
rescissions, entitlement targets, baseline budgeting, and emergency 
spending. But this was supposed to be the one item in the A-Z 
alternative plan that really cut spending, according to Mr. Orton on 
June 17.
  But I suspect the CBO, (had it been allowed to score this one,) would 
conclude that it doesn't save a dime. It does have a cost, though. It 
is costing the valuable time and energy of this House which could be 
better spent on real legislation having real benefits for this Congress 
and the country.
  What happened to those real spending cuts in entitlements promised by 
the author of this resolution and by the majority leader?
  Mr. Speaker, there are times when a rule should be defeated to spare 
the House from wasting its time on meaningless or bad legislation. This 
is one of those times.
  Mr. Speaker, if there was ever any doubt that this is nothing more 
than a political exercise to give some Members cover for avoiding the 
real spending cuts of the A-Z plan, one need look no further than this 
rule. It is written to please just one person--the author of this 
resolution.
  The rule makes in order the Orton resolution, followed by a vote on 
an identical Orton substitute, followed by votes on three Orton 
amendments. Denied by the Rules Committee were amendments by two 
Democrats--the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Sabo, relating to 
the Entitlement Commission's recommendations, and the second by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barca, relating to imposing Medicare 
premiums on wealthy beneficiaries.
  Also denied by the Rules Committee was a sense-of-Congress amendment 
by Representative Kasich of Ohio. That amendment would recognize the 
need for a balanced budget amendment to impose on Congress the 
discipline needed to reduce entitlement growth and the national debt.
  Moreover, the majority denied the minority our traditional right to 
recommit with instructions. We cannot even offer a single amendment at 
the end of the process in a motion to recommit with instructions. 
That's outrageous.
  The majority leadership is content to pay its debt to one Member for 
a deal that was cut, and the rest of the House be damned.
  Even the author of this resolution should vote against this rule 
since he promised back on June 17 at least 2 days of debate and the 
opportunity for other Members to offer amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the sponsor of this measure will understand if 
we pull the plug on this non-sense-of-the-House resolution now rather 
than 4 hours from now so that we can move on to the more important 
business at hand and adjourn this House sine die all the sooner.
  I urge my colleagues not to dignify this little political exercise 
any more than it already has been. Defeat this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our Republican 
whip.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all of my colleagues to vote no on 
this rule. I want to say that I believe this is a case study in three 
things.
  Bringing this up is a case study in how the Democratic liberal 
leadership manipulates and manages the House. Bringing this up is a 
case study in why the American people are sick of Democratic control of 
the House after 40 years of monopoly. Bringing this up is a case study 
in bad policy and how you can bring a dumb idea to the floor without 
having any context and without having any hearings and without 
understanding what you are doing.
  So for three reasons we should defeat it. Let me go back through 
them. Let us be clear that this rule and this resolution is a case 
study in how the liberal Democratic leadership manipulates the House. 
The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bill Zeliff, working with some 
Democrats, developed an idea called the A-to-Z spending cuts. It 
involved real cuts, it involved a real law that involved really 
eliminating some pork barrel. Under the new open discharge petition 
rule which the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] developed, we were 
actually on the verge of getting enough votes that we could actually 
bring the A-to-Z spending cuts to the floor and spend a week actually 
cutting spending.
  At that point, the liberal Democratic leadership went in overdrive, 
and they began to say to their Members do not sign the discharge 
petition for real spending cuts and we will give you a smoke screen to 
go home and claim you accomplished something. This bill on the floor 
today is in effect a reward for not having voted for and signed up on 
the discharge petition. It is a classic example of how the liberal 
Democratic leadership picks off one element of their party at a time to 
maintain control of the House against the will of the American people.
  But now let us look at the substance of today. It is the sense of 
Congress that current trends in entitlement spending are not 
sustainable. Let me tell Members, the baby boomers are too old to be 
taken in by this anymore. This used to work in the early 1980's when 
Tony Coelho was here, and when just saying anything would work, and 
people actually still believed politicians. But given the Clinton 
administration record of not meaning what it says, and given the 
Democratic control of Congress for 40 years, if any Member goes back 
home and stands up in the next 5 weeks and says I voted for a sense of 
Congress, in the first place, people do not believe there is any sense 
in the Congress. In the second place, the idea that instead of real 
cuts, instead of real changes, instead of real effort what we are going 
to have is one more phony campaign press release disguised as a vote on 
the floor so that when it was a Kasich budget that was real cuts, do 
not vote for that. When it was the Penny-Kasich spending cuts, so that 
was real, do not vote for that.

                              {time}  1010

  But now do you want a press release that has no binding law? Oh, that 
is terrific, vote yes, but, I mean, no person who is self-respectingly 
serious about cutting spending ought to vote for this thing just on the 
principle that it is embarrassing.
  But then there is the last point. Now, maybe my friends want to vote 
to cut Social Security. I know the White House attacked us just 2 days 
ago, and so we have an acid-test opportunity today, because as I 
understand it, this would cut the COLA's, the cost-of-living increases, 
for people on Social Security. There will be an amendment offered to 
give every Member a chance, without having hearings, without an overall 
strategy to cut spending, without doing anything about welfare, without 
cutting out pork-barrel spending, without doing anything about all the 
other entitlements, there will be an effort to come in here and cut 
cost-of-living increases for most Americans.
  Well, my Democratic friends may want to go ahead in a moment of 
foolishness and vote to cut Social Security. I think it is a bad idea. 
I think it breaks our contract with the American people. It is the one 
thing we Republicans said we were going to take off budget and we would 
not touch as part of our balanced-budget amendment. It is the one thing 
we said we would protect.
  I know that four senior Democrats last week jumped up and said you 
have got to cut Social Security, including the former chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. I know that a lot of Democrats are itching 
to cut Social Security. I know the Clinton administration raised taxes 
on Social Security recipients, retired Americans. I know there is some 
passion in the Democratic Party right now to punish senior citizens.
  I know the Clinton health plan was going to be paid for by $400 
billion in cuts in Medicare, but I do not see why any Member should get 
up and vote for a Social Security cut that has had no hearings, been in 
no committee, been reported by no subcommittee, been reported by no 
full committee, and sprang full-blown from the brow of one Member.
  This is almost as bad as the secret White House Clinton task force on 
health, one Member, on their own, invented their magic solution, they 
convinced their leadership to make it in order for the leadership's 
political purposes; they now want the House to walk the plank to make 
them look good.
  I urge a no vote on the rule. I urge a no vote on the amendments. I 
urge a no vote on the resolution. Let us be honest with the American 
people. Let us pass a constitutional amendment that will require a 
balanced budget, and let us pass a Kasich budget that cuts spending. 
Let us pass real welfare reform. Let us pass real cuts in pork. Let us 
pass real downsizing of the bureaucracy. But let us do it in law, not 
in some kind of public relations campaign.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, as long as we are talking about honesty in 
this body, let us be honest about what this body is willing to do and 
what this body is not willing to do.
  I challenge anyone in this body or anyone in this country to show me 
how you are going to balance the budget in the long term if you say we 
are not going to raise taxes, if you say we are not going to cut 
entitlements, if you say add onto that we are going to raise defense, 
but even without dealing with defense, if we are not going to raise 
taxes and we are not going to cut entitlements, ladies and gentlemen, 
it cannot be done in the long term.
  You can make it look good over a 5-year period of time. The Kasich 
budget, in fact, does reduce, but would not balance even over the 5 
years, but assuming their numbers were correct on the Kasich budget 
over a 5-year period of time, if it did balance at the end of 5 years, 
it does not balance at the end of 20, 25, 30, 35 years, because even 
with those changes it is clear, it is undisputed, the findings of the 
entitlement commission are clear if we do nothing with entitlements in 
25 to 35 years, entitlement spending alone consumes 100 percent of the 
revenue generated by this country. If we do not deal with entitlement 
spending, we cannot balance the budget, period. That is the fact.
  Now, if you want to dispute that, I would like to hear the argument. 
If we agree that we have to deal with entitlements, the question is 
when; if not now, when?
  Ladies and gentlemen, arguments are made here that the committee has 
not acted, that in fact the Committee on Government Operations should 
have looked at this and acted; by the way, the same argument by the 
same folks who signed a discharge petition to say Government Ops has 
not acted on A-to-Z, we have got to discharge that thing and bring it 
out here to the floor so this body can work its will, and then we turn 
around and say, ``Oh, but we cannot bring out entitlement reform 
because Government Ops has not acted.'' Talk about a duplicitous 
argument.
  Also, to suggest that this is nothing but a ruse, nothing but 
politics, talk about politics: Those people who say they want to 
balance the budget, who want to do something about entitlement reform, 
how many of them came to the floor 2 months ago and voted for the 
Stenholm-Orton-Penny amendment on entitlement caps which would have 
placed a limit on the growth of entitlements, would have said that 
entitlement spending could grow by the amount of growth in the 
inflation index, growth in the population, plus 1 percent over that; 37 
brave souls voted to cap entitlements in that one, a specific law, a 
statute, which is being asked for, to really reform entitlements, and 
37 people said yes. So we backed up and said OK, if we cannot get the 
people to step to the plate and vote for a real statute which reforms 
entitlements, then we had better take a look at what does this body 
want to do. Let us take the temperature of this body and let us ask 
them, ``Do you really want to talk about entitlements, or do you not? 
If you want to talk about entitlements, what areas do you want to deal 
with? Do you want to deal with means-testing, do you want to deal with 
age, do you want to deal with COLA's?''
  Because, folks, if you are not willing to deal with any of those, 
take a look at the CBO budget book on options for cutting the budget. 
You will find that virtually by far the vast majority and virtually all 
of the money that can be saved in entitlements is in those three areas.
  So if we are not willing to look at any of those, I ask my 
colleagues, if you do not want to vote, if you do not want to do 
anything with entitlements, vote against the rule, because you will 
kill the debate.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to call it to the attention 
of the previous Member in the well that he voted for a balanced budget. 
Our task force budget was balanced and did not raise taxes, did not cut 
Social Security. It did reinstate some defense cuts, but we cut $700 
billion, including entitlements over 5 years. We left a surplus at the 
end of the 5 years, a surplus at the end of 6 years. For the gentleman 
to say that this budget was not balanced 25 years later, well, I ask, 
what in the world is? None of us will, probably, be alive 25 years from 
now, but we have got to start someplace.
  This resolution before us now does not start someplace. It is just a 
whitewash of the terrible deficit situation we have in this country, 
and that is a shame.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
reject this rule.
  We have heard a lot of revisionist history on the other side. They 
are the Republicans, the only party under President Reagan to 
specifically pass legislation that hurt tens of millions of Social 
Security recipients, and now they want to become the great protectors, 
because they saw that was a disaster for them.
  It is hidden in their contract that they are going after Social 
Security again. Do not listen to the revisionism.
  There are other good reasons to vote against this rule. We do not 
know what we are doing here. This has not had hearings. What about this 
provision about 200 percent of the poverty line? First of all, Social 
Security at this point does not accumulate those records, so the Social 
Security would have to go out to all of its recipients and begin income 
reporting from those recipients.

                              {time}  1020

  That would be a bit of a problem since they cannot keep their 
computers straight now. That would cost tens of millions of dollars in 
person power and new computer investments.
  Who would be affected? A widow with an income of $15,000 a year would 
have her COLA capped under this proposal. Is that something the 
Democratic Party wants to support? I think not.
  But people do not understand that because this is a feel-good 
resolution. Let us go after entitlements, sort of entitlements in 
general.
  Think of the individuals who are impacted by this. What about 
veterans benefits? What is going to happen to veterans benefits under 
this? That is not something that the people paid into individually. Are 
they going to fall under the strictures of this? This is something that 
is ill-intentioned. It is not understood, and it is something that 
should not be voted on here today.
  Let us wait for the Entitlements Commission report and then let us 
begin to deliberately address this problem in ways that are effective, 
but let us not unintentionally put ourselves on record as going after 
widows with incomes of $15,000 a year, or veterans or other people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested here by some of the speakers that 
this is our one chance to deal with entitlements. That is nonsense. The 
fact is there are a number things we can be doing to deal with the 
entitlement problem that are better solutions than this.
  In fact, there is one solution to the entitlement spending problem 
that has been scored by CBO as being successful. This particular 
resolution we have before us is simply an idea that has not even been 
scored by CBO and cannot be scored by CBO.
  But the debt buydown concept that has been included in the Contract 
with America has been scored by CBO. CBO says if you give the American 
people an opportunity to check off up to 10 percent of their tax money 
to go to one purpose and one purpose alone and that is to buy down the 
debt, then you subtract $1 in spending for every dollar that the 
American people set aside for debt buydown, including out of 
entitlement programs except for Social Security--Social Security is 
exempted--if you do that, CBO says if it works optimally you balance 
the budget in 6 years.
  We have got CBO scoring on one of our proposals; where is the CBO 
scoring here? This is a feel-good measure. It has no effect. It is 
something being done in the final week of the Congress to allow 
Democrats to go home and talk about how wonderful it is that they dealt 
with the entitlement problem. They did nothing of the kind.
  If they wanted to deal with the entitlement problem, they would bring 
forward real proposals. There are real proposals that have been 
introduced. Debt buydown has over 100 cosponsors in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. It is one of the things we could be debating here.
  Why do not Democrats want to bring forward something like the debt 
buydown concept? Because it works. They do not really want to cut 
spending, there are practically no Democrats who even rank in the top 
50 of the people who are against spending in the House of 
Representatives, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
  These are people who love to spend money. They build their careers on 
spending money. This lets them get off the hook.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bacchus].
  Mr. BACCHUS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am not running for reelection, 
so I am free to tell the truth without political consequences. And I 
want to begin by applauding a man who is running for reelection and yet 
has the courage to tell the truth. His name is Bill Orton.
  Virtually everyone on both sides of the aisle in this House agrees 
with Mr. Orton. We all know he is right. Many fear the consequences of 
voting with him because they fear that if they do, people will not vote 
for them. And that is the sad state of affairs in which we find 
ourselves as a Nation.
  The truth of the matter is that we cannot do what we need to do as a 
Nation without restraining entitlement spending. It is that simple.
  Yet there are only 37 of us who voted a few months ago to begin 
restraining that spending that is running away with our future as a 
Nation. The truth is I support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and 
other entitlement programs. But those programs will not survive unless 
we begin to restrain the growth in spending and provide that only those 
who need it the most get the most.
  The truth is I want to avoid massive tax increases on the American 
people as a means of balancing the budget. But the truth of the matter 
is that unless we do something about restraining entitlement spending, 
we are going to have massive tax increases on working people as a means 
of balancing the budget.
  The truth of the matter is that we need significant investments in 
education, transportation, technology, defense, other domestic 
discretionary spending, as we call it, if we hope to have the right 
kind of future, a future in which we will not have to fear 
international trade agreements, in which we will not have to fear 
competition, a future in which we can compete and win.
  But unless we restrain entitlement spending, the growth in 
entitlement spending, we will not have that kind of future. We sill not 
have space station, we will not have a super collider, which we have 
already had to kill because of our refusal to deal with entitlement 
spending growth.
  The truth of the matter is that Republicans and Democrats alike, the 
vast majority of my colleagues, know that Mr. Orton is right and yet 
only Mr. Orton has had the courage to come to the floor of this House 
and offer this resolution. I hope his constituents in Utah will 
understand that Bill Orton is a leader and Bill Orton has the courage 
where others do not.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. HOKE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today first of all to associate myself almost 
completely, almost completely with the remarks of the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. I will get to the ``almost'' in a 
moment.
  Let us review the bidding for a moment.
  What has happened in the Committee on Rules? Well, what happened in 
the Committee on Rules was that we had one member from one district who 
somehow was able to get a single resolution with 3 amendments to that 
resolution made in order by the Committee on Rules. A number of other 
amendments were, remarkably enough, not made in order. In fact, they 
were all defeated on party line votes. Let us review what that means in 
the Committee on Rules for a moment, for those who have forgotten.
  The Democrats in the Committee on Rules have 9 members of the 
committee and the Republicans have 4, that is, 9 to 4. Remember what 
the balance is in the House. It is about 59 percent; it is about 60 
percent to 40 percent in the House.
  Yet on this particular committee it is 2 to 1 plus 1; 2 times the 
number of Republicans plus 2, completely stacking the deck.
  So what do we have here? We have got the sense of Congress resolution 
that says, ``It is the sense of the Congress that current trends in 
entitlement spending are not sustainable.'' Well, no kidding.
  You know, this is what we are going to be asked to vote about? Let me 
tell you about one of the amendments that was not made in order.
  Section 2, and this would be added at the end of the resolution, and 
this is the Kasich amendment. ``It is the further sense of the Congress 
that in order to resolve the imbalance in entitlement promises and 
resources and to reduce the debt as called for by this resolution, a 
balanced budget constitutional amendment should be passed by the 
Congress at the earliest possible date to impose on the Congress the 
discipline needed to achieve these goals.''
  It was voted down. Guess what the vote was; 9 to 4 against. Not in 
order.
  I commend the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]; he did vote in favor 
of a balanced budget amendment. That is great. But when we wanted to 
have that amendment placed on this, ``Not in order. Closed rule.''
  Let me ask, if I might engage my distinguished friend from Oregon in 
a colloquy about the thing that I did not agree with with respect to 
his remarks. He said that in the Republican Contract with America, that 
there is somewhere hidden in that contract a cut for social security. 
He said it is hidden in the contract.
  I wonder if the gentleman could cite the line and page of the 
contract where it is hidden.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hidden by implication. You cannot raise defense, 
lower taxes, and balance the budget.
  Mr. HOKE. Reclaiming my time, that is completely untrue. It is not in 
the budget, it is not hidden, it does not exist because that is not the 
way we are going to do it.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, we are in a time where I am not sure 
that we should not just go home because it has gotten to be such a 
silly season.
  I brought this hot fudge sundae down here because it reminds me of 
the Republican Contract. I say to my colleagues, ``It's not very hard 
to sell a hot fudge sundae diet. Everybody wants it, but when do you 
realize that it didn't work, that you're gaining weight on it?'' It is 
one more time that we are wishing and dreaming that, oh, if we could 
just increase defense, and cut taxes, and balance the budget; gee, that 
sounds wonderful. We tried it in the 1980's, and we added trillions to 
the debt, and now we will either add trillions to the debt or we will 
have to cut Social Security by at least the $157 a month, according to 
CBO and other people. So, one or the other happens, and I think we 
should not try to hoodwink the American people that way.
  Fine. I mean we know entitlements have got to be dealt with, but we 
know we are not really going to deal with them here today. We should 
wait until this commission comes out in December with some really hard 
choices, and I think at that time what we really need is to get the 
backbone and the will to come back and start dealing with these issues.
  I think the American people want common sense. They want to know that 
we are going to be fiscally sound. I think they are tired of all this 
political razzmatazz, and they would like a rendezvous with reality.
  So, maybe we ought to go home and rendezvous with reality to our 
constituents. They are very savvy. They know we cannot cut taxes, 
increase defense, and balance the budget, and they also know eventually 
we have to figure out how we are going to deal with entitlements.
  In Social Security more have paid more money into that than they have 
paid into taxes. So, to compare that type of entitlement with other 
kinds of entitlements is very unfair, and that is hopefully what the 
commission that is looking at this would look at, and hopefully then we 
will have some more common sense.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, there were several other points I wanted to 
make in the first opportunity I had to speak here. Perhaps we can now 
get into some of those.
  I think there are some points on which most of us in this body could 
agree. That is that in order to have long-term economic and fiscal 
strength we have to get at or near balance in our budget. The way to do 
that, the ways to do that, are limited. We either have to radically cut 
spending or radically increase taxes. Those are the only two ways.
  Increasing taxes is not a viable option. The country does not want 
it, this body does not want it; OK? So that leaves the only other 
option; that is, cutting spending, and I ask, ``Where are you going to 
cut spending to arrive at that?''
  Now, I, as mentioned, voted for the Kasich budget because I believe 
we have to make drastic cuts in spending. It did not pass. There are a 
number of other bills that I voted for, the balanced budget amendment 
and so on, that have not passed. So what we are attempting to do here 
is engage this body, and, by so engaging this body in a public policy 
debate, we can engage the country in a public policy debate. We can 
look at the realities of where are we spending money, where is the 
budget increasing over the next 5, 10, 20, and 30 years.
  That is what the entitlement commission has been doing, and for those 
people who scoff at the resolution, this resolution is nothing more 
than the principal finding of the entitlement commission. It is brought 
to this floor for the purpose of engaging a policy debate. I say to my 
colleagues, ``You cannot start with statutory changes to this program 
or that program because everyone in the body is supporting this program 
or that program comes in and, like my colleague from Oregon, argues 
vehemently, `Well, we can't cut this because we are hitting the little 
widow with a $15,000 income,' and that's the point, that we are not 
trying to do that.''
  One other point, and then I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  What we are hoping to do here is test the temperature of this body. 
Is there a desire to talk about the public policy issues behind 
entitlements, all of the entitlements? Is there a desire to really look 
at the realities of life expectancy in this country? When we started 
Social Security, life expectancy was below 60 years old. It is now 
above 70 years old. Yet we still have a 65-year retirement age. Do we 
need to deal with that over the long term? Are COLA's applied 
appropriately? COLA's began in the 1970's because this body came in 
giving substantial increases every year based on nothing, and so in an 
effort to try to hold down costs and save dollars this body created the 
COLA which put everything on automatic pilot to constantly increase at 
some arbitrary rate the Consumer Price Index. Is that an appropriate 
method for calculating COLA's? Who should get COLA's? Should the very 
wealthy who are earning hundreds of millions of dollars be eligible for 
those entitlements?
  I would ask my colleagues to look at the Record on Monday night. I 
did a 1-hour special order and outlined the information that has been 
provided to us by the entitlement commission. The areas of the budget 
that is increasing, increasing the most rapidly, are entitlements. They 
are the non-means-tested entitlements. If we vote today that we vote 
against the rule, voting against the rule tells this body and this 
Nation we do not even want to talk about the public policy of 
entitlements. I say to my colleagues, ``You have got to talk about the 
policy before you can aim in a direction of where you're even going to 
start looking to make these changes.''
  To vote against this rule is to say, ``No, it's a month before I'm 
standing for reelection. I don't want to make any voters mad. I don't 
want to have anything for my opponent to use in a 30-second campaign ad 
against me. I simply don't want to have to talk about the issue now. 
We'll talk about it later.''
  We have been putting that off for decades. We have got to get to the 
point where we are willing to have a public dialog on the basic 
policies of entitlements and how we can start controlling those, and, 
if we do not start with a sense of the Congress, I promise my 
colleagues this:
  If we pass this rule, and we pass this resolution, and we give this 
body a direction of where to go, we will come back with specific 
legislation to accomplish the desires of this body.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The time of the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has expired.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, ``I know that 
you're sincere and what you have said is so right. In other words, you 
either have to raise taxes or cut spending. The American people do not 
want to raise taxes. You, and I and this body doesn't want to. 
Therefore the only way to go is cutting spending. Our argument is the 
fact that, when we were pushing A to Z and forgetting the merits or 
demerits of A to Z, you and others were promised that we would have a 
debate on this floor of 2 days where we could really debate this issue 
and then have meaningful cuts. Our problem is we're not being allowed 
that, and you know that.''
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am as disappointed as the gentleman is.
  Mr. SOLOMON. As disappointed as I am.
  Mr. ORTON. I am as disappointed as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is that we do not have 2 days to deal with specific real cuts.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Right.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. ORTON. If we can start here, if we can start here with the policy 
debate for a few hours and get some direction about where this body 
wants to head, we can take this up again in January and February of 
next year, if we work together.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield. 
Would it not be great if we could have had this meaningful dialog 2 
months ago followed by meaningful cuts? That is what should have 
happened.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, it should have happened. I wish it could have 
happened. It has not happened. So the question is, do we now just cut 
and run and tell the public we do not even want to talk about this a 
month before the election, or do we really talk about the public policy 
issues behind these things? Bring it out in the open and let us find 
the ways, give this body direction of where we can start at the 
beginning of next year.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey], chairman of the Republican Conference and senior member on 
the Joint Commission on Economics.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This is a rather pathetic moment in the life of this body. Just last 
week the Republicans gathered together on the steps of this Capitol, 
offered a contract to American that was very explicit, written in very 
clear and precise language, each and every one of the 10 bills that we 
guaranteed will be brought to the floor under an open rule where 
everyone would be allowed to offer their amendments, Republican and 
Democrat alike. It was all spelled out.
  The President's chief of staff, Mr. Panetta, who watched us lay our 
cards on the table, clearly and openly and honestly with the American 
people, called that a fraud. The Democrats began to attack it on the 
basis of all kinds of things that are not even in the contract.
  Today what does the Democrat leadership do to respond to that? They 
bring a sense of the Congress resolution to the floor with a closed 
rule that forbids other amendments from being offered, even to do 
nothing but talk. The Democrats in this body cannot even abide free and 
open debate in an academic sense. As the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton] so eloquently suggested, all he wants to do here is talk about 
it.
  My colleagues, that is all in fact we will do here.
  Panetta calls our effort a fraud. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] 
has an opportunity, granted to him so graciously by the Democrat 
leadership, to come to the well with a bill and show his good 
intentions, to offer a sense of Congress resolution where we could 
acknowledge to America that we now know everything they have known for 
years, that entitlement spending is running this nation into the 
ground, and we ought to do something about it. Big deal.
  This is the Democrats' idea of action, create the perception of 
reality.
  One other request to open the debate was made before the Democrat-
controlled Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. 
He said if we are going to talk about entitlement spending, the fact 
that something ought to be done about it, why do we not talk also about 
the balanced budget amendment that 70 percent of the American people 
want.
  Democrats said we cannot talk about that. If we had a balanced budget 
amendment, it might mean we would have to do something about 
entitlements, which today we only want to talk about. Talk about a 
fraud. My colleagues, if this were any place other than the U.S. 
Congress, it would be so apparently goofy that people would be laughing 
at us. They would think this was Imus in the morning.
  The Democrats say you cannot get to a balanced budget without 
slashing and burning entitlements.
  Let me tell Members, the way we get to a balanced budget is we cut 
the increase in spending over the next 5 years from 5.2 percent to 3.2 
percent. Not a real cut in the business, no real increase in taxes and 
we do not touch Social Security. And they ought to be ashamed of 
themselves for trying to scare the seniors of this country into voting 
for you in another election year. That story is getting awful old, 
colleagues.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, anyone listening to this debate would be 
thoroughly confused, I believe, about what it is we are trying to do 
here. What we are doing on the Democratic side, to be perfectly blunt 
about it, is keeping a promise.
  We made a promise to at least one Member and maybe more that if they 
would agree not to sign a petition to bring entitlements to the floor 
to be slashed, that we could agree to publicly consider the issue. The 
Republicans call that just talk.
  Think about this for a minute. When the Congress appears to move 
quickly on a matter, the Republicans gin up their talk show machines 
and this place is flooded with calls saying to us Democrats: ``You mean 
you are not even going to talk about it, you are not going to debate it 
on the floor, you are not going to do anything about it? You are just 
going to vote, you are just going to vote on a secondary education act 
without ever talking about it.''
  Before we do what the Republicans like, which I truly believe is to 
take an ax to entitlements to lower middle income people, we thought we 
ought to publicly discuss it first. That is what we are doing.
  Are the Republicans satisfied with that? No. No, they would rather 
just take the ax to it, and they demonstrated that with that contract 
out front. The American people know they demonstrated it with that 
contract out front, because when we add up the promises in the contract 
and we draw a line and we subtract, do Members know what falls below 
the line, do they know what has to take the cuts? Social Security and 
Medicare. It is all that is left in their contract promises. It is all 
that is left in the Republican cut bull's-eye.
  So they are not satisfied to just come before the floor and publicly 
talk about this, have a rational national discussion about 
entitlements. They simply want to go after them, and they have wanted 
to go after them for half a century.
  Look at the records, my colleagues. Look and see how they voted on 
the critical amendments that designed Social Security as we know it 
today. Republicans voted more than 75 percent those decades ago against 
Social Security and against those critical amendments that went into 
the design of today's Social Security. And since then, they have been 
on record almost every time against Social Security.
  Look and see how they voted on Medicare, when it was first designed. 
They voted overwhelmingly against it. And since then, they have been on 
record almost every single time as being against Medicare.
  Now, Democrats have said we recognize that entitlement growth is a 
problem in America so let us talk about that problem. Democrats 
recognize, as do the American people and as do our colleagues on the 
right, including our colleagues on the far right, we all recognize 
together that there is a problem with entitlements in this country, a 
growing problem. President Clinton and Senator Kerry and the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky have established 
a commission to have a dialog with the American people so that somehow 
we can come to grips with our constituents regarding what we do about 
this coming financial crisis in America, a crisis placed on us in large 
part because of unintended consequences due to entitlements and the 
growth of that entitlement spending.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. Speaker, we need that dialog. We need that discussion. What we do 
not need in America is the way our Republican colleagues would deal 
with this, which is to bring up a bill, slash entitlements, and tell 
the American people ``tough.'' That is not the way to deal with it. 
Perhaps a discussion like this is the way to deal with it, even though 
they call it just talk.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The Chair would 
remind members of the gallery that they are guests of the House, and 
any manifestations for or against the proceedings of the floor are 
contrary to House rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], a member of the committee.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  My colleague just pointed out that rank-and-file Members of Congress 
complain when the Democratic majority rushes things to the floor, 
schedules votes, and permits no debate. We also complain, as we are 
complaining today, when we schedule only debate and no votes. What we 
actually want to see is action: a deliberative process, real debate, 
followed by real action.
  As I was leaving the airport men's room the other day I saw on the 
hot air hand dryer, as I was walking out, the work of a populist 
graffiti artist who had written just above the button ``Press here for 
a message from your Congressman.''
  Today the choice is between hot air and action. Why are we, in the 
last hours of the session, debating a nonbinding, sense-of-the-Congress 
resolution? It is not for lack of substantive vehicles to cut spending. 
My own budget process reform act, with nearly 200 sponsors in this 
Congress, deals directly with the problem of entitlement spending. We 
cannot get it to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the commonsense budget reform act deals directly with 
real spending cuts. H.R. 3801, the overall legislative reform bill 
proposed by the bipartisan Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress, could be here on the floor, but the Democratic leadership 
prevents it; most importantly of all, Mr. Speaker, the A-to-Z bill, 
which would provide 56 hours under an open rule to debate and then vote 
upon legislative spending cuts.
  However, Mr. Speaker, this procedure today, which I am strongly 
opposing, has been specifically designed to prevent legislative action 
on spending cuts and to prevent, specifically, A to Z.
  I read from a statement by the gentleman from Utah, Bill Orton, dated 
June 17, 1994:

       I am very pleased to announce that after weeks of work 
     within the Democratic Caucus, we have developed an 
     alternative to A-to-Z spending cuts. There is a very basic 
     concern that it is almost impossible for individual Members 
     to actually cut spending. The result of this frustration is a 
     large number of Members cosponsoring the A-to-Z bill.

  However, he says this approach will prevent A to Z.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I guess we would have 
titled this debate ``Tell me something I don't know.'' This is a sense 
of Congress that says something we know.
  I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, do they not 
have any confidence whatsoever in the Entitlement Commission, which was 
a bipartisan Entitlement Commission which has been put together by our 
President to study this and make resolutions within the next 3 months, 
which is an ongoing process? I think that shows a real loss of faith. I 
resent it, because I am on the Commission.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to read from a letter from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]:

       While facially inoffensive, H. Con. Res. 301 does nothing 
     to address the entitlement spending trends which it 
     criticizes. In fact, the resolution does little more than 
     quote from the real work of the ongoing Bipartisan Commission 
     on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Because this measure is devoid 
     of substance and offers little more than a parliamentary 
     parlor game to provide cover for those unwilling to face true 
     spending reforms, I urge the Rules Committee to deny it a 
     rule and prevent this last minute charade from reaching the 
     House floor.

  That says it all, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker, and I reserve the right 
to close.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I understand we have 1 minute remaining on our 
side, and the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick], has only his closing remarks, is that correct?
  Mr. DERRICK. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would briefly say this debate cannot be too 
encouraging for those watching it out in the country. We hear all this 
talk about balancing the budget and about doing something about 
excessive spending on the Federal level. However, if we cannot even get 
a resolution to the floor to talk about it, how could anyone have any 
confidence that we are going to do anything about it?
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter I referred to 
earlier, which was addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                           Committee on Government Operations,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
     Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that the Rules 
     Committee will meet this afternoon at four o'clock to 
     consider a rule on H. Con. Res. 301, Expressing the Sense of 
     the Congress Regarding Entitlements. I strongly urge that no 
     rule be granted.
       Introduced just last Friday, H. Con. Res. 301 was 
     reportedly referred to the Government Operations Committee, 
     although we have yet to receive it. Still, it appears that 
     without formal receipt or notice of waiver, Government 
     Operations has once again been dischared of its jurisdiction 
     over the federal budget process.
       While facially inoffensive, H. Con. Res. 301 does nothing 
     to address the entitlement spending trends which it 
     criticizes. In fact the resolution does little more than 
     quote from the real work of the ongong Bipartisan Commission 
     on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Because this measure is devoid 
     of substance and offers little more than a parliamentary 
     parlor game to provide cover for those unwilling to face true 
     spending reforms, I urge the Rules Committee to deny it a 
     rule and prevent this last minute charade from reaching the 
     House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                          William F. Clinger, Jr.,
                                          Ranking Minority Member.

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would briefly say this debate cannot be too 
encouraging for those watching it out in the country. We hear all this 
talk about balancing the budget and about doing something about 
excessive spending on the Federal level. However, if we cannot even get 
a resolution to the floor to talk about it, how could anyone have any 
confidence that we are going to do anything about it?
  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 the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSS. 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 Chair advises Members that this is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 83, 
noes 339, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 483]

                                YEAS--83

     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Berman
     Bonior
     Browder
     Bryant
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Darden
     Deal
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards (CA)
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings
     Hoagland
     Hoyer
     Hutto
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Lloyd
     Long
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Orton
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Reynolds
     Rostenkowski
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Shepherd
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Swift
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Torres
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams

                               NAYS--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barcia
     Clayton
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Hamburg
     McNulty
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1118

  Messrs. CUNNINGHAM, DINGELL, FLAKE, OWENS, CLAY, HALL of Ohio, 
ROEMER, GONZALEZ, and THOMAS of Wyoming, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Ms. 
WOOLSEY, Ms. FURSE, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BRYANT, DEUTSCH, STARK, and FOGLIETTA, and Ms. SHEPHERD 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________