[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H39-H90]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H39]]

  

                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

                              (Continued)

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I support many of the important rules 
changes being presented here today. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems strange 
to me that the first opportunity that the Republicans get, they start 
doing what they have complained about for years. They claim to be 
willing to open up this body's proceedings, but the first day's 
business is being conducted under closed rules. That means that any 
Democratic ideas, regardless of merit, will not even see the light of 
day. We will start this Congress with business as usual and a gag on 
the voice of Democrats. This is not the way to start the 104th 
Congress. The Republican resort to closed rules is as unbelievable as 
their last-minute defeat of lobby reform and the gift ban last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``Saying that this is open 
debate just don't make it so.''
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the new Members of this body 
the voters elected to change the way Washington works. Many of us 
campaigned on the issue of reform. I want to say to other new Members, 
``Don't get cold feet now. We're considering a lot of reforms here 
today, and I support many of them, but let's be honest. These reforms 
don't go nearly far enough. They don't begin to address the real 
concerns of the American people.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not angry at Washington because 
there are too many proxy votings in Congress. They are angry because 
there are too many lobbyists, too many lawyers and too many special 
interests with too much influence. They are angry because they see 
Members taking money and gifts from well-connected insiders and, in 
some cases, trying to use their offices to amass personal wealth.
  This is supposed to be the day when we address the rules Members live 
by, yet in the entire Republican rules package we are considering today 
there is not a single amendment that addresses any of these issues. I 
would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle:
  ``If you really care about changing the way Washington works----''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy) has expired.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 additional seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Are we not supposed to yield time in no less than 30-
second increments?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has 
control of the time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Is that is the package that the gentleman is offering?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, but I will be glad to put it in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy] 
may now proceed for 15 additional seconds.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle:

       If you really care about changing the way Washington works, 
     if you really want to show that the House of Representatives 
     is not for sale, I urge you to say no to gifts, say no to 
     personal gain in the people's House, and support the gift 
     ban.

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we will soon be voting to 
change the way the House operates in several ways, but it is not 
enough. Later, we will also be considering a bill to bring the Congress 
into compliance with many private sector laws that apply to the rest of 
the country.
  Last Congress, Mr. Speaker, many of my Republican colleagues pointed 
to the closed rules as an example of the tyranny of the majority. It 
is, therefore, disappointing that the Congressional Accountability Act, 
the first bill to be considered by this Congress, will be offered under 
a closed rule. Open rules allow the minority the opportunity to amend 
legislation and to allow all points of view to be heard. I was led to 
believe that the House will be operating under a more open system. 
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is not open.
  Despite my disagreement with the rule on the bill, I intend to 
support the Congressional Accountability Act. This bill is no stranger 
to those of us who are Democrats because we offered it last year, and 
it passed last year before this 100-day blitzkrieg that we are going 
through. I believe extending employee protections is an important and 
meaningful step for Congress, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle will extend that to all workers in the future.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  [[Page H40]] Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] for yielding this time to me, and I want to 
say many times I have voted against my side and voted for open rules, 
and how disappointed I am today to find out that we not only have a gag 
rule, but we have a choke rule because this side has been totally 
choked off from offering any kind of amendment or any kind of addition 
to the reforms. As I look at this reform package, I got to say it is 
reform-light.
                              {time}  1710

  Now, you know, there are some things in there, sure, they are easy, 
reform them. But the real thing I find people are angry about is the 
fact that this body operates like a coin operated legislative machine. 
They are real tired of the guys who have the most coins to put in being 
the only one to get the legislation out. We dealt with that last year. 
We passed a bill by 311 votes. We are trying very hard to get that in 
here.
  We also do not deal with many of the other abuses that have gone on 
in this place. We already last year put everybody under the laws we 
pass for everyone else. So let us not pat ourselves too hard on the 
back by doing that again, and let us move on to many other reforms we 
should be dealing with.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard all day that this is an historic day. For 
me and for the four other delegates, it is historic as well. Two years 
ago, for the first time ever, our names were added to the official 
roster of this House. Today, the rules propose to erase those names.
  The courts would not erase them. The courts said that the House could 
empower the Delegates. The courts said that Members could 
constitutionally democratize their own House. If the erasures occur, it 
will be by our own hand and by our own rules.
  Oh, that is a bittersweet thing for the Delegates, especially for 
this Delegate, who represents 600,000 taxpaying citizens.
  In 1993 I wrote a legal memorandum that erased for the first time in 
200 years part of their plight--paying Federal taxes while having no 
representation on this floor. Today we are told, forget that. Go back 
to where you started.
  Well, we cannot go back, Mr. Speaker. I ask my colleagues to take a 
leap of imagination with me and put yourself in my place. Suppose your 
constituents paid $1.6 billion annually to the Treasury of the United 
States. Suppose your constituents were third per capita in Federal 
taxes in the United States of America. Suppose your constituents paid 
more taxes than each of six states.
  How would you feel when you watched other Members vote on your taxes, 
and I mean local taxes, my friends, vote on your laws, and I mean local 
laws, my friends, because our local business comes before this House.
  The vote to be erased means nothing to this body, but it means 
everything to the taxpaying citizens I represent. After all, a re-vote 
will be taken if delegate votes are determinative. You claim that you 
will democratize this House, and in some measure you will, but not in 
this measure.
  I suspect that the denial today is not an act of meanness, but an act 
rooted in the partisanship of the past, rather than in the events in 
which you take such pride today. For you, this was a plot of the 
Democratic leadership. Forget that, my friends. It was my plot, my 
memo, my taxpayers.
  My Republican friends, I say to you today that there is no need to 
return to the partisanship of the past now. You have won. Leave it be. 
Let it rest. Be as gracious in victory as you have been tenacious in 
earning that victory. Restore the vote to those who live in the houses, 
in the neighborhoods, and in the city of the great House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, editorial opinion from one end of the political spectrum 
to the other has been unanimous in support of my right to vote. I 
submit these editorials for printing in the Record.
               [From the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 1994]

               Taxation, Representation and the District

       Two years ago, Republicans picked up 10 seats in the House 
     of Representatives, despite the Democratic victory at the top 
     of the ticket. Not long thereafter, D.C. House Delegate 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton, who had no voting rights in the House, 
     floated a proposal whereby she would be able to participate 
     in all House votes taken in committee, including the 
     committee of the whole, in which most of the House's 
     important work is done, short of final passage of 
     legislation. Soon, however, the four non-voting territorial 
     delegates to the House--one each from Puerto Rico, Guam, the 
     U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa--got themselves 
     included in the proposal as well. All five are Democrats, as 
     it happens. And Republicans, with some justification, 
     screamed bloody murder, accusing the Democrats of trying to 
     regain the Democratic majority's rule-making powers half of 
     what Democrats had lost at the polls.
       The delegate-voting proposal was subsequently modified such 
     that in votes by which legislation is sent to the floor of 
     the House from the committee of the whole by less than a 
     five-vote margin, another vote must be held without the 
     participation of the five delegates. Republicans nevertheless 
     sued, but federal courts ruled, correctly, that the House 
     itself is constitutionally empowered to propagate such a rule 
     for delegate voting.
       Well, now there's a new congressional majority: Republican. 
     So what to do about delegate voting? No doubt there will 
     substantial GOP sentiment for simply undoing what many regard 
     as a blatant partisan powergrab. The matter is worth second 
     thoughts, however.
       Republicans take note, for this is an argument that ought 
     to be dear to GOP hearts: There is a major difference between 
     the situation of the District and that of the four 
     territories. It can be summed up in one figure: $1.6 billion. 
     That is the total amount of federal income taxes paid each 
     year by residents of the District of Columbia. It compares 
     with $0 from the four territories. And it is near the very 
     top compared with congressional districts nationwide.
       District residents deserve some consideration in exchange. 
     Mrs. Norton's retention of her limited voting powers--which, 
     by the way, hardly constitute ``representation'' commensurate 
     with taxation--are worthy of serious discussion. And let's 
     also begin the discussion about whether justice wouldn't be 
     better served by a District whose government receives no 
     federal payment--but whose residents are not taxed by the 
     federal government, either.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 19, 1994]

                    The Threat to D.C.'s House Vote

       Among the galaxy of rule changes expected in a Republican 
     House of Representatives next January, one provision deserves 
     to remain on the books. A House rule adopted early in the 
     current Congress--unanimously opposed by House Republicans--
     allows D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and representatives 
     from four U.S. territories to vote in the House Committee of 
     the Whole, where the bulk of the House's floor business is 
     conducted. But now the House's new leadership says it will 
     revoke the five delegates' limited voting rights. Mrs. Norton 
     has vowed to fight the effort to take away her vote. She 
     deserves to prevail.
       The voting arrangement, which was Mrs. Norton's idea, was 
     crafted to ensure the House stayed within constitutional 
     bounds. Under the new rules and in accordance with the 
     Constitution, the delegates do not enjoy full voting 
     privileges. But consistent with the combination of limited 
     powers they already have to introduce legislation, serve and 
     vote on standing committees and debate on the House floor, 
     the House agreed to allow Mrs. Norton and her four colleagues 
     to participate in one more committee--the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       To ensure the prerogatives of the House were not weakened, 
     the House adopted a fail-sale device: a member can require 
     that any Committee of the Whole-passed measure must be voted 
     on a second time in the full House, where Mrs. Norton and the 
     other delegates can't vote. So the arrangement is beyond 
     legal or constitutional attack. That isn't only the judgment 
     of the House. A U.S. district judge for the D.C. circuit also 
     accepted the merits of the argument, as did the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals.
       There are, however, other compelling reasons for the House 
     to leave the District's voting privileges intact. There is 
     the matter of fairness. Unlike the inhabitants of the U.S. 
     territories, District residents pay Federal income taxes, and 
     on a large scale. The District ranks third per capita in 
     taxes paid to Uncle Sam. Yet when matters critical to the 
     District (which means every piece of legislation passed by 
     the mayor and council) are before the full House, Mrs. Norton 
     must stand by voteless as members from around the Nation 
     register their will.
       The voting arrangement, while severely limited in scope, 
     does give Mrs. Norton the chance to register the will of more 
     than 600,000 taxpaying Americans in House debate as she now 
     does in her committee assignments. For victorious House 
     Republicans, in their first exercise of power in 40 years, to 
     take away Mrs. Norton's voting privileges is wrong.

[[Page H41]]

                  [From the Roll Call, Dec. 22, 1994]

                           Save Norton's Vote

       Our first plea to the new GOP majority is likely to fall on 
     deaf ears, but we'll make it anyway: Save DC Del. Eleanor 
     Holmes Norton's vote on the floor. Unlike the other four 
     Delegates who represent US territories in the House, Norton 
     represents federal taxpayers, who pay in $1.6 billion every 
     year to the US treasury but now face the loss of even their 
     symbolic vote in the House's Committee of the Whole.
       Republicans have hated the Delegate voting rights since 
     Democrats first granted them two years ago, and when the 
     104th opens on Jan. 4, they are fully prepared to take them 
     away. But as Capitol Hill's only twice-weekly newspaper, we'd 
     be crazy to agree. ``No taxation without representation'' 
     still strikes a chord with us.
                                                                    ____

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 31, 1994]

                        More Colonialism in D.C.

       Imagine your outrage if the state where you live were 
     suddenly stripped of representation in Congress, even as that 
     very same Congress dictated how local tax dollars were spent 
     and ran local policy--right down to garbage collection.
       The taxpayers of Washington D.C. don't need to imagine. 
     Taxation without representation is an insult they live with 
     every day. The incoming Republican Congress wants to add to 
     this indignity by revoking the District's largely symbolic 
     vote in the House of Representatives' Committee of the Whole. 
     That is a colonist idea. Washingtonians and their 
     Congressional Delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, are right to 
     be fuming.
       With a population of nearly 600,000, the District of 
     Columbia has more people than Vermont, Wyoming or Alaska. But 
     it does not have a voting representative in Congress. 
     Although District taxpayers contribute $1.6 billion yearly to 
     the Federal Treasury--more Federal taxes per capita than in 
     all but two of the 50 states--Washingtonians must beg to use 
     even their local taxes as they see fit. Congressman from all 
     over the country meddle in how locally raised taxes are 
     spent.
       Two years ago, House Democrats awarded symbolic floor votes 
     to four previously non-voting delegates--from the District of 
     Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa--as 
     well as to the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico. That 
     arrangement allows delegates to vote when the House meets as 
     a ``committee of the whole,'' which is where it does most of 
     its legislating. But in cases where the delegates' votes made 
     the crucial difference in a close ballot, another vote would 
     be taken without the delegates.
       The incoming Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, would now 
     strip the four delegates and the commissioner of any vote at 
     all. The Republicans were right to resent the Democrats' 
     transparent effort to add to their majorities, as well as the 
     wasted time involved in having to repeat close votes. But 
     surely Mr. Gingrich can see the difference between the 
     District of Columbia and the territories. The District pays 
     Federal taxes by the truckload; the territories contribute 
     nothing.
       The incoming Congress swept to victory by touting a new 
     federalism, promising to make government work for Americans, 
     not against them. Mr. Gingrich also promised to make the 
     House more democratic. A truly democratic Congress can hardly 
     justify denying the District one small voice in the body that 
     controls its every move.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado, I yield 2 minutes to no one better than the majority whip, 
the gentleman from Sugar Land, TX, Mr. DeLay.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very interesting process we 
are going through. Just as we have had to learn to be the majority, I 
think the minority needs to learn to be the minority. The gentlewoman 
from Colorado is talking about we have gag rules and choke rules, and 
the gentlewoman from Missouri said we are not going far enough in 
reform. I need to remind the minority that they have had 40 years to do 
this, 40 years to do these kinds of reforms, and they chose not to do 
any of these.
  I also should remind the minority when they were in the majority in 
just the last Congress, they did not put the gift ban nor lobbying 
reform in their rules of the House. They went through the normal 
legislative process, just as we want to go through the normal 
legislative process on a legislative package like the lobbying reform 
package. We do not want it in the rules.
  But all that aside, when we were in the minority and you were in the 
majority, the first thing we would do would be to come to you with 
amendments to ask you to allow us to put the amendments in your 
packages. We received an 18-page amendment on your motion to commit 
about 2 minutes before we voted on it.
  So if you will come to us and make your proposals to us, then maybe 
we will accept them. But to just come and bring proposals to the floor 
without even checking with the majority is not going to get you very 
far.
  Over 60 years ago, this House embarked on a legislative journey that 
became known as the New Deal. Today this House is beginning another 
journey. We are in the majority, you are in the minority. I hope that 
we can work together. I hope you will bring us your ideas, and maybe we 
can include them in the package. But do not just come up here and throw 
something out on the floor and expect us to accept them out of hand.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay], whom I like very much and respect, he complained about the 
amount of time that we did not provide for him and his colleagues on 
the motion to recommit. I might suggest to him that we will be offering 
the same ban on gifts to lobbyists as well as the book royalty issue on 
the next motion to recommit, which will be down the road in about 5 
hours. It is about 20 pages, and it should be sufficient time for you 
to digest it, understand it, and maybe you will accept it. So we hope 
you will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that while the American 
people were promised an opening day of sweeping reform and openness in 
Congress, they instead see the use of restrictive rules to prohibit 
Democrats from offering amendments to the new so-called reforms.
  If today were truly the end of business as usual in Washington, we 
would be reading headlines about new progress in the fight to help 
Americans find and keep good jobs to provide for their families, not 
about $4 million book deals.
  Americans voted to make sure that Congress was not for sale. They 
voted against arrogance, the arrogance of cashing in on public office, 
of using the majority to require supermajority votes on certain issues, 
and for open rules that create the open debate we heard promised today 
in such glowing terms.
  We have been denied the chance to make real news here today. I voted 
for the Democratic motion, which will be offered again. I hope it will 
be accepted by the Republicans this time to revise the rules to include 
a ban on gifts from lobbyists and a limit on the income which Members 
may receive from the royalties on book sales. That was the opportunity 
for real change. Republicans blocked them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior] has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] has the right to close.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a reform we did 
make. Two-and-a-half years ago in the wake of the problems in the bank 
and the post office, I served as a member of a bipartisan task force 
which drafted House Resolution 423, an unprecedented effort to totally 
eliminate politics and patronage from the administration of the House 
support operations. I am saddened that on this day of reform, the new 
majority proposes a change to go back from professional management and 
businesslike personnel policies to the discredited patronage system.

                              {time}  1720

  However, that is what they are proposing and they have already 
started to implement it.
  Let me remind Members of what we have accomplished. We have created a 
Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, with a mandate to 
sweep the House clean of waste and fraud and inefficiency. We have 
provided that both the majority and minority parties must agree on the 
selection of the director, so that only skill mattered, not politics.
  [[Page H42]] Today we turn back from that in very short time, and we 
have already started with a totally partisan person to administer the 
House.
  We had an inspector general who was going to report to a bipartisan 
subcommittee. That is all gone, so there is no more oversight in a 
bipartisan way of the things that happen in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago in the wake of the Sergeant-at-Arms 
Bank and the Post Office affairs, I served as a member of the 
bipartisan task force which drafted House Resolution 423, an 
unprecedented effort to totally eliminate politics and patronage from 
the administration of House support operations.
  I am shocked and saddened that on this day of reform, that the new 
majority would propose in this package of rules changes to move back 
from professional management and business-like personnel policies to 
the discredited patronage system. Yet that's what they are proposing 
and have already begun to implement.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind you what we had accomplished.
  We created a Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services with 
the mandate to sweep the House clean of waste, fraud, and inefficiency. 
We provided that both the majority and minority parties must agree on 
the selection of the Director to ensure that only relevant experience 
and skills would count, not the politics of those who applied.
  Today the new majority proposes to turn the clock back to an era of 
one-party partisan control over everything in the House from the 
payroll clerks to the telephone operators.
  And our reform did not stop there. We created an independent Office 
of Inspector General to be directed and report to a new bipartisan 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight with equal representation from 
each party.
  Today the new majority kills that bipartisan subcommittee and returns 
to a partisan oversight committee.
  Is this reform?
  Why is the new majority rolling back the bold and totally bipartisan 
approach to managing House support services? One can only speculate 
that they were only giving lip service to bipartisan professionalism. 
Now that they are in power, they are abandoning professionalism and 
grabbing for the spoils of victory.
  I believe history will judge harshly those who eat their words from 
the past so easily without any sense of their hypocritical vote to 
return to the discredited spoils system.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rollback to the bad old days.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as we begin work today, we have a clear understanding of 
our purpose for the next 100 days. We have the unique opportunity in 
this body to set partisan politics aside. The people have told us they 
want things done differently in the Congress.
  They have given a new set of leaders a chance to make things happen, 
but they have also issued a firm warning to deliver and they are 
watching closely.
  The rules package before us is an important first step in fulfilling 
our commitment to make this body accountable to those who sent us here. 
For example, applying the laws everyone else has to live under to 
Congress; an audit of the House books and reducing the number of 
committees and staff.
  Our goals have been set, our agenda is clear, and now it is up to us 
to meet those goals and complete our agenda. These first 100 days are 
going to be hectic but with unity and bipartisanship, they can be 
historic as well.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if we believe in term limits 
on committee Chairs and limits on proxy voting, then we should vote for 
it. That is the majority way. That is the democratic way.
  However, I draw the line when Members start to diminish the value of 
my vote by requiring a 60-percent rule on anything. That is not the 
majority way. That is not democracy. That is not any way to treat a 
minority.
  I would submit that it is un-American, it is unconstitutional, and 
the 60-percent rule by majority vote is un-American and 
unconstitutional. I ask you to vote against this idiocy.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just caution the previous speaker 
about talking about things like un-American. The gentleman did vote for 
the Democrat rules package last year which required a two-thirds vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Has the gentleman yielded 
himself time?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will stand out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York wish to 
yield time?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Yes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rules package before 
the House of Representatives, which is the fundamental first step 
toward restoring the accountability of this House to the American 
people.
  To my colleagues who have recently participated in this debate on the 
other side, when the gentleman spoke of the diminishment, you begin to 
diminish your credible standing as a lady and gentleman in the House 
when you act as if you carry the mantle to an open process.
  When I first came to this Congress 2 years ago, I was shocked to see 
the Congress being run as an undemocratic institution. The 103d 
Congress was a closed, mismanaged, undemocratic institution. The 
standing rules of the House were continually waived to avoid 
accountability.
  Fortunately for the American people, that was yesterday. Today I am 
pleased that this House will adopt a provision that I have advocated 
requiring the committee chairmen to make every attempt to abide by the 
House rules and disclose provisions that do not meet those rules, 
therefore requiring a waiver by the Committee on Rules. By simply 
following the House rules, we will help bring much needed sunshine, 
accountability and fiscal responsibility to this body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has 
2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 1 
minute and 15 seconds remaining.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has the right to close 
debate.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this morning 440 voting cards were 
issued. Five did not work. I got one of those right here, courtesy of 
the new majority, which claims to be democratizing this body.
  I rise in strong opposition to the new majority's rules that rescind 
the privilege of the Delegates voting in the Committee of the Whole. 
This is not an infringement of States' rights. The Delegate vote is 
purely symbolic. This is about the inclusion of 4 million American 
citizens who reside in the territories.
  What the Republican majority of the congress is saying to these 
American citizens is something that America would never say to the 
world. Would America tell Haiti, Eastern Europe, and Russia that in 
order to build a democracy, you first start by separating citizens 
based on tax status?
  This country has broken down barriers of gender, race, poll taxes, in 
order to perfect the American ideal, and it is wrong to turn the clock 
back now.
  By turning its back on the U.S. citizens on Guam and the other 
territories, Congress is sending a message that American citizenship is 
less important than the size of our wallets.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  [[Page H43]] (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, some of the reforms we are voting today are 
good, and some I have problems with. The one I want to briefly focus on 
is the requirement that it will take a 60-percent vote to raise 
personal and corporate income taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the current tax system in 
America is highly regressive. Tens of millions of working Americans and 
middle-income Americans are paying a higher percentage of their income 
in taxes than are millionaires. Corporations today in many instances 
that are very profitable, that are taking their jobs to the Third 
World, are not contributing their fair share in taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we want a fair tax system, an 
equitable tax system, majority vote should rule in allowing the House 
of Representatives to raise taxes on the wealthy and on those 
corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired for the minority.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 minute 
and 15 seconds.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to expedite this as fast as we can. Mr. Speaker, 
let me just point out that coming next will be 20 minutes of debate on 
eight separate sections of title I of this bill. These are the 
significant changes in the rules over the rules that we have been 
operating under in the previous Congress, which was the Democratic 
rules package.
  Because these are significant changes, we have chosen to at least 
offer the opportunity to vote on each of the eight, and that is the 
debate that we will be starting on in just a few minutes.
  I would just point out in closing that this is the most 
comprehensive, sweeping reform of this House that we have known in over 
50 years. I would hope that the body would support the resolution, 
after we have finished debating the individual sections.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support 
of the Rules Package for the 104th Congress. Last November, the 
American people sent a strong message that it was time for a change in 
the U.S. Congress. This important package is the first step towards 
that change. Implementation of the ``Contract with America'' will help 
to restore the people's trust in government. The American people want a 
Congress that is accountable for its actions, not one that hides behind 
the laws it passes. This resolution will provide for the most open 
Congress ever.
  I believe it is important to show America that Congress can put its 
own house in order before dealing with the rest of the Nation's 
problems. This package will curb many of the abuses that occurred 
during the minority party's lengthy control of the House. During the 
campaign, each republican candidate made a promise with the American 
people to change this institution. The contract with America is about 
putting the people back in charge and not entrenched politicians.
  This reform package contains 23 measures that will produce a more 
efficient and accountable U.S. House of Representatives. Committee 
staffs will be reduced by one-third, and in some cases obsolete 
committees will be abolished or merged into other committees. 
Additionally, the bill referral process has been revamped so that only 
one committee will now have primary jurisdiction over each piece of 
legislation. Term limits for committee chairman and the Speaker will 
also be imposed.
  This package represents the most significant overhaul of the rules 
process since 1974. Virtually all committee business will now be 
accessible to the public and the media. The horrendous practice of 
proxy voting will end as will rolling quorums. Additionally, Members 
will be limited in the number of committees they may serve on, and all 
committee votes will become public record.
  In addition to House procedure, this resolution is taxpayer friendly. 
Under this package, any income tax increase must now be approved by a 
three fifths majority of the House of Representatives. The provisions 
relating to baseline budgeting and limiting tax increases will help to 
enforce fiscal discipline in the Congress.
  After four decades of one party control, the American people have 
finally had enough. The American people deserve an open legislative 
process. Most people would agree that the Federal Government is too big 
and spends too much. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
long believed that big government is the answer. I do not. This rules 
package is the first step in an effort to make government more 
efficient and more accountable.
  The Contract with America will put an end to the tax and spend 
Congress of the last 40 years. The contract offers the American people 
an opportunity to restore the American dream that was lost. Most 
importantly, this package will rekindle the trust between the people 
and their elected representatives. I urge my colleagues to support the 
rules package.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the provision 
requiring a supermajority for certain tax increases. This provision is 
unconstitutional, sets a dangerous precedent and clearly demonstrates 
the Republican's intent to protect upper-income Americans at the 
expense of low- and middle-income families.
  The ``limitation on tax increases'' provision would institute, for 
the first time in the history of Congress, a rule requiring a 
supermajority vote for the simple passage of legislation. Such a rule, 
however, runs contrary to the fundamental democratic principle of 
majority rule. The Constitution clearly specifies the exceptional cases 
in which a supermajority is required. Greater majorities can also be 
required for procedural motions, like curtailing debate or suspending 
the rules. Otherwise a simple majority is the requirement of the 
Constitution.
  Although the Constitution does give the House the power to set its 
own rules, the courts have long made it clear that this does not mean 
the House has the authority to change the basic framework of the 
Constitution.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, requiring a supermajority vote on taxes 
sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to create similar 
requirements for other controversial issues. If Republicans can require 
a supermajority for tax increases, future rules changes would require a 
supermajority for such issues as increasing spending on defense.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the ``Contract With America'' which outlined 
the 10 legislative initiatives that the Republican candidates promised 
to introduce if they gained a majority in the House, included a 
provision to require a three-fifths majority in the House for approval 
of any tax increase. Now that Republicans are in the majority they have 
reneged on their contract and changed this provision to apply only to 
increases in the most progressive of taxes, income and corporate taxes. 
Increases in more regressive taxes such as payroll taxes and excise 
taxes, which hurt low- and middle-income Americans the most, could 
still be approved by a simple majority.
  You may recall Mr. Speaker, that during the 1980s, the Republican 
Administrations followed a similar legislative agenda to the current 
Republican Contract of cutting taxes for the wealthy, increasing 
defense spending and trying to balance the budget. However, the deficit 
exploded as a result of these policies. Trying to recover some of the 
lost revenues, the Republican Administrations increased these kind of 
regressive taxes which continue to hurt middle-income Americans today.
  By making the most equitable and progressive taxes subject to a 
supermajority vote, while allowing more regressive taxes, such as 
excise taxes, to be approved through simple majority, the Republicans 
are creating rigid new fiscal policy and clearly indicating their 
intent to repeat the past of protecting wealthy Americans at the 
expense of working families.
  Mr. Speaker, the principle of majority rule is the very essence of 
American democracy and must be protected by Members of Congress, not 
sacrificed for political purposes. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues 
to vote against the supermajority provision which violates this 
essential principle.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to the elimination of legislative service organizations 
[LSO's] in the House of Representatives.
  As a member of several invaluable legislative service organizations 
[LSO's], I know firsthand the important role they have played in 
analyzing and promoting legislation to assist Members working together 
on common interests and in pursuit of common goals. In the case of the 
Congressional Black Caucus [CBC] and the Congressional Caucus for 
Women's Issues, LSO's have enabled Americans who are significantly 
underrepresented in Congress to have more united and more effective 
voice in the legislative process.
  The impact of the Congressional Black Caucus has been dramatic as the 
CBC has sought to promote an agenda of equity and fairness for African-
Americans across the country. The CBC was instrumental in passage of 
the Civil Rights Act, promoting sanctions against South Africa, leading 
the fight for disadvantaged business opportunities, expanding the 
earned income tax credit in the President's 1993 budget, pushing for 
more positive, preventative activities for youth in the crime bill, et 
cetera. Without the CBC, it is 
[[Page H44]] questionable whether such significant legislative strides 
could have been made so effectively.
  The Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues has had equally 
remarkable successes as a result of working together to further 
legislative goals of importance to women and families across the 
country. Historic changes have occurred as a result of the work of this 
important bipartisan LSO. Medical research practices at the National 
Institutes of Health were changed to better assist women, Federal 
contracting opportunities for women-owned businesses were improved, 
funding for fighting crimes against women and domestic violence was 
approved, the Safe Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed, et 
cetera.
  Mr. Speaker, eliminating LSO's will hurt the many Americans who can't 
afford their own high-paid lobbyist to argue their cause. The 
Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional 
Caucus for Women's Issues, to name a few, all represent groups of 
Americans who are vastly underrepresented in the U.S. Congress. In our 
democratic Nation, all Americans deserve a voice in Congress and with 
the elimination of these valuable LSO's I am concerned that their 
voices will no longer be heard. And this, Mr. Speaker, is a reform 
which we simply cannot afford.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this momentous 
occasion to speak to this House and the American people about the 
events that have unfolded since the historic November 8 election, and 
to celebrate the reforms we will enact today. What a difference a day 
makes.
  As a Republican, my entire service as a Member of Congress has been 
in a House controlled by Democrats. In this time I have watched as 
House proceedings became more and more partisan, and decisions which 
could effect every American became more secretive and exclusive. I 
watched the number of committee staff nearly triple while the 
committees became dominated by special interests and unable to respond 
to public desires. Republican efforts to reform the system, open up the 
deliberation process, and clean up the sloppy internal management and 
corruption were met each time by Democratic arrogance and obstinacy.
  On November 8, an overwhelming majority of Americans throughout our 
Nation rallied behind principles included in a Republican Contract with 
America, and demanded that reforms making Congress more accountable and 
effective be implemented. In the wake of that election day, the 
American people sent a new majority to Washington, a Republican 
majority, to answer that demand. I rise today to tell the American 
people we have heard your call. As we promised in our contract, today 
we begin to deliver.
  While many of the provisions in today's reform package are changes 
Republicans have been promoting for decades, much of our proposal is 
the product of several weeks of hard work which began immediately after 
the election. In fact, the Republican
 Transition Team, on which I was proud to have served, began work 
almost immediately on changes to the structure and operations of the 
House. Under the Republican Open House proposal which we released in 
December, and is included in this package, major changes in the House's 
administrative operations will be adopted today. These include 
broadening the powers and staff of the House inspector general, and 
providing him authority to refer any possible violations to the House 
Ethics Committee, abolishing the Office of the Doorkeeper which is 
loaded with hundreds of patronage employees; and ensuring congressional 
compliance with Federal laws. A major accounting firm will also be 
hired to conduct a comprehensive audit of the House's finances which 
will be made public upon completion.

  Requiring that Congress complies with the same Federal laws and 
regulations that apply to the private workplace has long been a goal of 
mine. In fact, last Congress I was an original cosponsor of 
legislation, the Congressional Accountability Act, identical to that 
included in today's resolution. The House passed a version of this act 
near the end of the 103d Congress, but the measure died because the 
other body failed to consider it.
  Passage of this act underscores that no American should be immune 
from law or receive special treatment in its application. In addition, 
this act encourages all of us as legislators to continue to review the 
burdens that Federal laws place upon us as citizens. The laws which we 
apply to Congress today include the Civil Rights Act, the Americans 
With Disabilities Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection 
Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the 
Rehabilitation Act, and the United States Code on fair labor management 
relations.
  Reducing the amount of congressional staff is also a cornerstone of 
our reform efforts today. As the ranking Republican of the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Subcommittee during the past Congress, I worked 
to substantially reduce the number of people in the Congress' employ. 
Unfortunately, Democratic intransigence prevented us from enacting 
anything more than a 4-percent reduction over 2 years. Today's 
resolution reduces the number of committee staff personnel alone by 
one-third, a total of 622, with a potential savings to the taxpayer of 
$70 million over the next 2 years. How's that for a change.
  Another cost-cutting measure included in today's package eliminates 
legislative service organizations. These Member caucuses which 
represent special interests cost the taxpayer $5 million a year and 
take up a large amount of office space. In fact, elimination of the 
LSO's and their 97 staff positions along with the committee staff 
reductions may free up enough space so that we can sell off an entire 
House office building.
  The Republican reform package we consider today also
   makes substantial changes to the present committee system by cutting 
three House committees and 25 subcommittees, limiting the terms of 
committee chairs and banning proxy, or ghost, voting. Not since 1947 
has a standing committee of the House been eliminated. We'll take 
three, and if Members wish to vote on legislation in committee, they 
will have to be present. No longer will baron committee chairs wield 
the proxies of absent individuals who feel they have better things to 
do, defeating the efforts of committee members who do their work and 
care. Finally, committee meetings will be open to the public, ensuring 
fairness and accountability. We can all recall the day when Democrats 
in the House Ways and Means Committee voted for the controversial 
retroactive tax increases in the Clinton budget behind closed doors, 
barring the press and the public from their proceedings. Passage of 
this package will put an end to those shameful days. Under the 
Republican majority, the sun will shine in.

  In the context of truth and accountability, Republicans have also 
included in their reform proposal a truth-in-budgeting requirement 
which will have an enormous impact on the public's understanding of 
Federal spending. Under past budget rules, an increase in spending was 
often called a budget cut if it wasn't more than inflation and other 
specified increases would cause. That's like saying we are reducing 
spending by not spending more than we already spend.
  The new House rule stipulates that if you spend more money in one 
year than you spent the year before, it is an increase. Spending may 
rise because of an increase in inflation, but the fact is that it will 
be recognized as an increase. There will be no more Mickey Mouse 
budgeting. In this Congress, the truth will be told and the public will 
know.
  The final provision of today's historic House reform package is one 
that will positively affect the lives of every American by making tax 
hikes more difficult. This Congress will require a three-fifths vote of 
the House to pass any income tax rate increase and will prohibit 
retroactive taxation of income. This supermajority requirement is quite 
similar to restrictions voters have imposed on numerous State 
legislators, and stands in stark contrast to past Democrat rules which 
require a supermajority to cut taxes. Another beneficial aspect of this 
new rule is that any future Congress seeking to get around it would 
have to change or waive the rule, providing a warning sign of impending 
tax boosts.
  Mr. Speaker, with this past election we saw the results of an 
American public outraged with the business-as-usual attitude of a 
Congress controlled by Democrats for 40 years. The message from an 
electorate tired of false messages and empty promises was clear--no 
more. Today's actions are the first step in fulfilling the promises 
made in our Contract with America, and represent more congressional 
reform than the public has seen in decades. They are not an end, but a 
beginning of a Congress more open, more accountable, and more 
responsible than ever. A Congress which will listen to the people, 
speak frankly in response, and spend no more than it needs to serve the 
people it represents.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the overall Republican 
House rules package. It makes many badly needed and long overdue 
reforms in the way this House operates. I believe those reforms will 
help Congress regain the confidence of the American people, something 
which has been lacking for far too long due to the complacency of 
previous Democratic congressional leaders. However, Mr. Speaker, I am 
concerned about the provision in the package which would require a 
three-fifths supermajority to pass income tax rate increases.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution designates seven specific instances in 
which a supermajority is needed for Congress to take action. Those 
cases include override of a presidential veto and the Senate's approval 
of a treaty, among others. Other than those seven cases, however, the 
Constitution clearly establishes a Congress which operates on the 
[[Page H45]] basis of simple majority rule. I therefore have great 
reservations about whether such a provision should pass constitutional 
muster. This obviously, ultimately, would be a question for the 
judicial branch to be resolved in the course of litigation challenging 
the constitutionality of our rule. My vote for this change in our 
rules, then reluctance and while strongly supportive of the provision 
preventing retroactive tax increases, is made with great reservation 
regarding the constitutionality of the provision requiring a 
supermajority to pass income tax rate increases.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 6 adopting the 
Rules of the House of Representatives for the 104th Congress. This bill 
adopts many changes in the Committee system, particularly in the 
provisions of Rule 10 that govern the respective jurisdictions of the 
Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  The language of proposed rule X governing the jurisdiction of the 
Banking and Financial Services Committee makes clear that the Banking 
Committee has primary authority to review legislation that governs bank 
securities activities. The Rule draws an exception to that 
jurisdiction, however, that reflects the operation of existing law. The 
activities of any bank, any separately identifiable department or 
division of a bank, any affiliates of a bank, or any persons associated 
with a bank or affiliate, for example broker/dealers, municipal 
securities dealers, or mutual funds just to name three, that are 
regulated under the Federal securities laws, will continue to be 
subject to the primary legislative jurisdiction of the Commerce 
Committee. This is what is referred to as functional regulation.
  Furthermore, recognizing the particular nature of institutions whose 
deposits are insured by the Federal Government, there is an exception 
to this exception. The Banking Committee will share jurisdiction over 
these entities regulated under the securities laws with regards to 
legislative provisions that are intended to protect the safety and 
soundness of the depository institution.
  I favor this approach to the jurisdiction of the respective 
Committees because it reflects an agreement reached by and between me 
and my two good friends, Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Leach. It is may 
hope that the wording of H. Res. 6 will result in an elimination of the 
bottlenecks that have prevented the House from passing comprehensive 
financial services reform legislation. It is of critical importance 
that the regulation of the financial services industry be reformed to 
allow banks to enter the securities business and brokers to enter the 
banking business on an equal footing. I look forward to cooperating 
with Chairman Leach in enacting legislation to accomplish that goal 
during the 104th Congress.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rules package 
under consideration today. I urge my colleagues to support this package 
because it represent real reform. Reform I have been calling for since 
my first election 2 years ago. Reform the American people have been 
calling for--for far too long.
  This Rules package contains reforms promised in the Contract With 
America and its passage will represent a promise kept--a refreshing 
change for Congress. Let each and every one of us here in Congress 
today recommit ourselves to keeping the promise made in the Contract 
With America. The American people will judge us by our success in 
meeting this commitment. Let us not fail their trust.
  The process which developed this Rules package was remarkably open 
with all Members of differing seniority and differing perceptions 
having the opportunity to help draft this remarkable reform document. I 
salute the new Chairman of the Rules Committee, the Honorable Gerald 
Solomon, for his openness and dedication which produced this product.
  I personally experienced Chairman Solomon's commitment to openness 
when I proposed a ban on commemorative. This Rules package prohibits 
the introduction or consideration of any amendment, resolution or bill 
that expresses any commemoration of any specified time period. The days 
will finally end when the Congress spends the people's time considering 
such legislation as ``Mule Appreciation Day.'' Chairman Solomon 
welcomed my suggestion to prohibit commemorative legislation and 
committed himself to working with me on it. I am proud to have drafted 
the language which served as the base for the legislative language 
included in the bill for consideration today.
  I also want to express my thanks to my new freshman colleagues who 
have made the commemorative ban a reality. You freshman have provided 
us with the majority to pass this reform bill and you freshmen have 
made this proposal a priority by obtaining the Republican Conference's 
endorsement of a commemorative ban. Thank you all very much.
  I am proud to have played a small role in developing this remarkable 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to keep our 
promises, to listen to the American people and to support genuine 
reform. My colleagues, please join me in voting ``yes'' for this vital 
legislation.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, this agreement addresses the intent of the 
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the Chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight concerning the 
jurisdiction of each committee over the congressional budget process. 
It is not intended to address jurisdictional issues involving the 
budget process between the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Rules.
  Paragraph (1)(d)(2) of rule X, relating to all concurrent resolutions 
on the budget and other measures setting forth budget totals for the 
United States, affords the Budget Committee legislative jurisdiction 
over the establishment and adoption of the congressional budget 
resolution, whether joint or concurrent. This extends to any statement 
setting forth a balanced budget as required by an amendment to the 
United States Constitution, or a capital budget or joint/capital 
operating budget, if mandated.
  Paragraph (1)(d)(3) of rule X affirms the Budget Committee's primary 
jurisdiction over budget terminology and secondary jurisdiction over 
other elements of the congressional budget process, such as those 
currently provided for in the Congressional
 Budget Act. This includes: The budget resolution, timetable and 
accompanying report language; committee allocations; and the 
reconciliation process. This paragraph is not, however, intended to 
provide the Budget Committee with jurisdiction over the following: 
process changes in Federal rescission or impoundment authority; process 
changes in the submission of agency performance plans or reports, or 
agency regulatory plans, reports or reviews as part of the budget 
process; or process changes leading to the required adoption of a 
Federal capital budget or joint capital/operating budget which accounts 
for the fixed assets of the United States Government. In addition, this 
paragraph is not intended to provide the Budget Committee with 
jurisdiction over special funds, accounts or spending set asides 
created to reduce the deficit.

  Paragraph (1)(d)(4) of rule X is intended to provide the Budget 
Committee with jurisdiction over measures to control spending, the 
deficit, or the Federal budget. The Budget Committee's jurisdiction 
will include the establishment, extension and enforcement of mandatory 
and discretionary spending limits; Pay-As-You-Go requirements for 
legislation that increases the deficit; and special budgetary 
mechanisms to control spending, the deficit or the Federal budget. The 
Budget Committee will have jurisdiction over Federal sequestrations, 
including sequestration rules, special rules and exemptions. The Budget 
Committee is intended to have jurisdiction over the selection of 
programs subject to spending controls, the determination of the 
numerical level of those controls, and the enforcement of the controls.
  Paragraph (1)(g)(4) of rule X is intended to retain the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight's legislative jurisdiction over: 
measures relating to process changes in Federal rescission or 
impoundment authority; measures relating to Executive agency budgeting, 
including the submission of agency performance reports or plans, or 
agency regulatory plans, reports or reviews as part of the Federal 
budget process; measures relating to Executive agency financial 
management; and process changes leading to the required adoption of a 
Federal capital budget or joint capital/operating budget which accounts 
for the fixed assets of the United States Government. In addition, the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight retains jurisdiction over 
special funds, accounts and spending set asides created to reduce the 
deficit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and expect to go on to title I of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for initial debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 5 the question is divided among each of 
the eight sections of title I and title II, and the previous question 
is ordered on each portion of the divided question.
  Section 101 is now debatable for 20 minutes. The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  (Mr. CHRYSLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1994 I pledged to my constituents that we would 
restore accountability and responsibility to the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Today 
[[Page H46]] we embark on that journey. The American people were 
sincere in their demand for change for this country, and their 
Government in particular.
  In response to this clarion call for a change, the 104th Congress 
will not just change its politics, but more importantly, we will 
restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected 
representatives. If we are to change the Federal Government as the 
American people have asked us to do, then we must begin with ourselves. 
We can not and must not ask any department or branch of Government to 
do anything that we are not willing to do ourselves.
  It will take a smaller Congress and committee structure that can act 
decisively to accomplish all of the things that will be necessary to 
fulfill our Contract With America in the next 99 days.
  A streamlined Congress is integral to an efficient Congress. When 
this debate is over, this bill passed, committees eliminated, and 
committee staff reduced, I am confident that the House of 
Representatives will be a more effective and efficient institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, a vote for the three-fifths tax proposal is a 
vote to keep the gravy train running for fat cats and millionaires. It 
will make it more difficult to lift the burden off those who need tax 
relief most, working Americans.
  Under this proposal, it will be much tougher to touch the $200 
billion a year in corporate welfare that big business is handed through 
tax loopholes and tax exemptions, and tax fairness will be harder to 
achieve because this proposal will put a virtual lock on tax cuts that 
the super-rich received in the 1980's.
  The new majority should be embarrassed that it is promoting a middle-
class tax break while pushing changes that will make it more difficult 
to obtain tax fairness.
  I urge a ``no'' vote for this misguided proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Chrysler] is in control of the time. Does he wish to yield?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me the time.
  On November 8, 1994, the American people sent a loud, clear directive 
to Washington, DC.
  The people have demanded a smaller Government that runs more 
efficiently and costs less money.
  The American people know that wasteful, inefficient Government 
spending, leading to huge deficits and debts, is not an acceptable 
legacy to leave our children and our grandchildren.
  This rule change does three significant things:
  First and most important, it fulfills promises made by myself and 
many of my colleagues to the American people. This starts the long 
process of restoring the integrity of this institution that was 
envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
  Second, this rule forces Members of Congress to set an example for 
the rest of Government. This institution can and will be run more 
efficiently.
  Third, this rule will save the taxpayers of this Nation millions of 
dollars annually.
  It is an honor and a privilege to serve our country as a part of this 
Congress. This privilege brings with it an awesome responsibility that 
I take very seriously.
  If we in this Congress are to bring about the significant changes 
demanded by the American people, we must start with ourselves. That is 
why today I speak in support of this rule change designed to do what 
the people have demanded--make a smaller Government that runs more 
efficiently and costs less.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by 
applauding the majority for a host of the reforms that they have put 
forward for us to consider here today. Among them, the reductions in 
committee staff, banning proxy voting, and limiting the tenure of 
chairmen. I think many of these proposals are moving this Congress and 
this country in the right direction.
  I am disappointed, however, in an area where there is a glaring 
omission and a gaping inconsistency and I would hope that we could 
dialog here on the floor even though it is a closed rule to see if you 
might be receptive to some type of cooperation on this in the future.
  I have introduced legislation in the previous Congress, H.R. 1945, 
that was cosponsored by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] on your 
side, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] and many others that would have taken excess funds 
from our personal offices when we saved them and applied those directly 
to the U.S. Treasury so that we can reduce the deficit.
  I have returned over $650,000 in the last 4 years. I think many other 
Members in this body have done better than I have done and should be 
applauded for those efforts. But I would hope that this contingency 
fund would be addressed in this proposal. I would hope that you would 
be receptive to addressing this in a fair and judicious manner here 
today or explain why it was not addressed in this rule change.
  Here is something that is important to the American people. As small 
businesses are tightening their belts, farmers are trying to make 
decisions to invest now or cut back for investments later, families are 
sitting down at the end of every month to make decisions on their 
budgets, and many of us are cutting back on our personal staffs, why 
can there not be a provision in this bill to allow that money to go 
directly to the U.S. Treasury? That might encourage other Members to do 
so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] has expired.
  Mr. ROEMER. Do I get an answer, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman gets time on his side, I will be happy 
to respond, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] is recognized to yield 
time.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, a key ingredient of the new Republican 
majority's rules package is the elimination of approximately 30 
subcommittees in the House of Representatives. There were 101 House 
subcommittees in the 103d Congress. Today, under the new Republican 
majority in the 104th Congress, the House will function with 30 percent 
fewer subcommittees.
  Fewer subcommittees will help to consolidate decision-making and 
impair the ability of special interests to dominate the agendas of 
committees. The end of proxy voting in subcommittees will mean that 
Members of Congress must show up to work and vote in person. Further, 
Members will be limited to serving on no more than four subcommittees 
and, when those subcommittees meet, the public will be invited.
  Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee reforms that the House will vote on 
today will mean fewer staff, less taxpayer money expended on 
duplicative and unnecessary staff and office expenses, less 
bureaucracy, less gridlock, less special interest power, and more 
accountability to the voters. These reforms are long overdue, and they 
deserve our support.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to add to 
what the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has just stated and to 
make the point that the reduction in subcommittees and full committees 
was started in the last Congress by the Democratic Party. We eliminated 
16 subcommittees in that Congress again and we 
[[Page H47]] also, as Members know, eliminated 4 committees in that 
Congress as well.
  What is happening today is not new but in some instances is welcomed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that in this package, there is 
really less than meets the eye. There is not very much wrong with it. 
The problem is not what is in the package but what is not in the 
package.
  The problem is that after every one of these reforms is passed, the 
lives of the average American will not be made very much better. And so 
any claims that the millennium has arrived because we have passed 
something like this are grossly overstated. It is not that it is bad, 
it is just that the claims for it are exaggerated.
  Let us go through them one by one.
  Cutting committee staff by one-third. Fine. But what about the 
millions of Americans who either do not have jobs or the tens of 
millions with job insecurity?
  Baseline budgeting. Great. But you have still got to cut. You cannot 
just change the baseline.
  Term limits for committee chairmen. It does not matter how long they 
stay. It is how good they are. If they are good, they should stay a 
long time. If they are bad, three terms is too many.
  Opening all meetings to the public. That is already done.
  Three-fifths voting for tax increases. Well, does this mean that we 
are going to see taxes simply reduced on the rich? What about saying 
that we should not reduce taxes on people who make above $250,000 
without three-fifths so it is harder to reduce taxes on the very rich 
and we can make sure the tax cuts go to the middle class who we are 
supposedly all talking about?

                              {time}  1740

  Audit of the House, no problem. Finally, the remainder of the rules 
package is all rather trivial.
  So the bottom line, my colleagues, is very, very simple. This package 
is a small step forward, fine. I welcome it and I will vote for much of 
it. But anyone who goes away saying the millennium has arrived, that 
this is a revolution or that the average citizen in Peoria, IL, or in 
Yakima, WA, is going to be better tomorrow because this package has 
passed is sadly mistaken.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, to cut committees, whether it is a profit margin in a 
business or whether it is the burden of closing bases or the 
infrastructure this has taken away from the central source, or whether 
it is from the Education Committee, I would say to the distinguished 
Whip we only get about 23 cents out of every $1 down to education. I 
have a head of a committee that is in charge of about $30 billion, but 
if I have $1 billion for say child nutrition, and I divide that into 52 
States, and every city in that State has services, then I have 40 
programs for children's nutrition, and all of those have a bureaucracy 
which takes away the benefit.
  What I am trying to do is get the money down to the children and into 
the classrooms and pay for the teachers. Let us eliminate the 
bureaucracy. If Head Start works, let us get it fully funded. If child 
nutrition works, let us fund it. But what we need to do is to eliminate 
the middleman, and in this case the Federal employees, the staff that 
is taking away and causing tax dollars and, yes, Federal pensions down 
the line, let us eliminate them and I think that will help.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my 
friend from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], I have not had the chance to 
congratulate him. He is a new Member from our State, and I congratulate 
him on his election and for being with us today, and for the 
outstanding way he is handling this portion of the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah], another new Member.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak today on the 
first day in the midst of what probably appears to most Americans as 
partisan gamesmanship. I do, however, think there is something sinister 
about one particular part of this reform package, and that is on this 
that has been called a historic day that there are Members of this 
Congress who are going to cast a vote to deny the U.S. citizens in the 
District of Columbia and in the territories their voice and their vote 
on the floor of this House.
  Being a Congressman from Philadelphia where we see people talk about 
it being the birthplace of our democracy, I would not want to be silent 
at a moment like this. I think that it is wrong. I think as we think 
about the taxpayers here, and the young people in Guam and the other 
territories who have fought and died for the freedoms of this land, for 
any of us to feel comfortable with casting a vote to take away their 
voice on this floor, that is wrong.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I became a Member of the 104th Congress 
to develop a sincere way of changing Congress as we have known it 
throughout these years. Part of that change includes shrinking the 
bureaucracy within Congress itself.
  In 1950 this body functioned with 93 committees and subcommittees. 
Today there are 185 committees and subcommittees, twice as many as in 
1950.
  Between 1945 and 1993 the number of committee staff grew from 159 
employees to 2,231, an increase of more than 1,300 percent.
  The American people demand that Congress lead the way in reducing the 
size of Government. The people of the First Congressional District in 
Kentucky and all over this country want an efficient and responsive 
Government. But good government does not necessarily have to mean big 
government.
  That is why I stand here today to support reform proposals to reduce 
committee staff by one-third, to eliminate three standing committees 
and 25 subcommittees. I urge Members' support.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. David Bonior, for his kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that as the new minority the 
Democrats, in terms of complaining about process, have failed to really 
address one of the more fundamental reforms which is clearly in front 
of them. Long before we wound up winning we said that this institution 
should give first, that one of the things we should do is cut back on 
the size of committees. We tried a number of initiatives when you folks 
were in the majority and we failed miserably.
  We simply said we are going to cut staff by one-third. Is one-third a 
rational number? Is it going to cause real problems? We have discovered 
that it is not very difficult to cut by one-third. We are cutting 
staffing by one-third. We are probably going to do better than that, 
actually, as we assign the numbers to the various committees.
  We also shrank the number of committees. Did we shrink enough 
committees? Did we eliminate enough committees? We do not know. What we 
said was at the outset we would cut them by one-third. That is our 
initial offer. I believe by the end of the 104th we are going to find 
that we can do better than that. Democrat Members are complaining 
because we do not do more. Why did they not do it when they had the 
chance?
  The gentleman from Indiana mentioned the contingent fund. He needs to 
know his party eliminated the contingent fund as an appropriation item 
several Congresses ago. The rules changes 
[[Page H48]] also eliminate references to the so-called contingent fund 
in this section as well as in the section regarding the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on House Oversight. No change, however, is intended 
regarding the Committee on Oversight's jurisdiction over the accounts 
that comprised the contingent fund. Similarly regarding privileged 
reports, the Committee on Oversight will continue to have leave to 
report at any time on matters of expenditure of the accounts that 
comprised the contingent fund, such as the committee funding 
resolution.
  The gentleman from Indiana wanted to know why if he saved money out 
of his account it could not be returned to the Treasury. I will tell 
the gentleman that I am sympathetic with that position, but it is much 
more difficult than that, because in the past the Appropriations 
Committee did not fund 100 percent of the expenditures available to 
Members. They funded about 90 percent of it, assuming Members would not
 spend the 100 percent amount. If the gentleman spent 85 percent, he 
was funding those who spent 95 percent, and therefore if every Member 
spent the maximum amount available to them, in fact, that fund would be 
overspent. So in reality the Member does not get a pile of money out of 
which they spend. There is a general amount available. The Members draw 
on that amount, and that amount is significantly less than the total 
amount available for all Members to spend.

  I am more than willing to work with the gentleman in trying to 
resolve the problem of Members who husband their resources in a 
meaningful way, having it go to a worthwhile cause more so than someone 
else who is more profligate with the taxpayers' money. I am open to any 
suggestions and am more than willing to work with the gentleman from 
Indiana to carry out the goal and the thrust of his concern, and that 
is to make sure that Members who husband the taxpayers' resources 
somehow get rewarded instead of being fodder for those who overspend.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy with the gentleman's cooperative 
spirit here, but would say he is willing to tackle the committee staff 
reductions, and I applaud that and will vote for that, but we should 
also tackle the personal staff issue. For Members like myself and many 
others who have returned $650,000 through the years, we do not want 
that money spent on other Members going over their mail accounts.

                              {time}  1750

  When you decipher what you have just said, we want to be able to have 
that money go to the U.S. Treasury, and a simple sentence in this 
provision, if it was not a closed rule, could say unspent personal 
office funds shall be directed to the United States Treasury out of our 
accounts.
  Mr. THOMAS. I would tell the gentleman that, as the ranking member of 
the Committee on House Administration in the last Congress, I have 
worked over the years to make sure that the Members' accounts were not 
only more flexible but that there was not more spending than was 
necessary. As the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, which 
is the continuation of the former Committee on House Administration, 
your concern about Members' accounts is going to be addressed by this 
new majority, and legislation is being drafted as we speak to get to a 
problem which we have both shared under the previous majority, we tried 
to get them to change over and over again and they would not.
  We are going to.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed House 
rule to impose a supermajority--60 percent of Members voting--
requirement for tax rate increases. I believe this proposed rule is 
inconsistent with the oath we took earlier today to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution clearly states 
that decisions of the Congress are to be based on majority rule. This 
proposed House rule is in clear violation of the constitutional 
principle of majority rule which is at the core of our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress will consider fundamental issues about 
taxing and spending. Such decisions are the central responsibility of a 
democratically elected Congress.
  This proposed rule is designed to stack the deck against tax 
increases for the wealthiest Americans while at the same time imposing 
no such requirement for increased user fees or excise taxes, which 
disproportionately affect low and middle income Americans. As a result, 
progressive taxation would require a supermajority while regressive 
taxation would not. The Republican Party has a long history of acting 
to protect the wealthiest Americans at the expense of average 
Americans. This proposal is Republican business as usual.

                                             Williams College,

                                Williamstown, MA, January 3, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Gingrich: As a fellow historian and political 
     scientist, may I urge you not to go ahead with the proposal 
     to amend rules to require a three-fifths vote to increase 
     income tax rates.
       As a matter of principle, majority rule lies at the heart 
     of our democracy. It is the most representative process; and 
     departure from it grants authority to a minority--the 
     antithesis of democratic society.
       As a matter of practicality it is the most representative 
     process that also permits decisive action, under a two-party 
     system.
       As a matter of propriety, bypassing majority rule would set 
     a precedent for any minority to hold the majority hostage--
     today on tax hikes, tomorrow on economy bills, etc. It is 
     dangerous for one side to use an improper weapon against the 
     other side, encouraging each side to use it in the future, to 
     the detriment of the general welfare.
           Sincerely,

                                        James Macgregor Burns,

                                       Woodrow Wilson Professor of
                                             Government, Emeritus.

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, people all over this country now are contemplating going 
on a diet after feasting during the holiday season. I think it is only 
appropriate that this body consider doing the same thing.
  Two years ago there were some 2,231 House committee staffers. That is 
more than five committee staff people for every Member of this body.
  In the next few months we are going to be asking the American people 
to go on a diet as we seek to reduce Federal spending and cut back on 
Federal programs that affect them. Have you ever seen an advertisement 
for a weight loss program where the spokesperson was overweight? How 
can we, with any sense of responsibility, talk about a balanced budget 
and deficit reductions unless we first show some responsibility in 
reducing the size of House committee staffs and, in the process, save 
approximately $30 million per year in the process?
  I rise in support of this proposal.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time, 1 minute, 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. I applaud the House for undertaking these proposals, 
many of which I campaigned for and many of which I support and will 
support today.
  But I have to agree with my colleague from Indiana that I think we 
should include his legislation to make some of these cuts real.
  Unlike my colleagues in the majority, I have gone beyond supporting 
cuts in committee staff to making cuts in my personal staff, and that 
is hard to do as a new Member. I think it is important, and like my new 
colleague from Kentucky who spoke from the other side of the well said 
today, it is important we show the American people we are willing to 
lead on cutting the deficit. I have taken that; the gentleman from 
Indiana has offered legislation which would do that, and I think we 
should include it.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, the remainder 
of my time.
  Today we will put an end to confusing, overlapping committee 
jurisdictions. Three full committees and 25 subcommittees will be 
eliminated; 
[[Page H49]] today we will cut staff 34 percent, saving the taxpayers 
almost $45 million.
  I am pleased to be part of the beginning of this process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. All 
time has expired.
  The question is on section 101 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 12, not voting 5, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--416

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--12

     Abercrombie
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Dellums
     Fattah
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Johnston
     Meek
     Owens
     Williams
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Clinger
     Cubin
     Frelinghuysen
     Roukema
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1811

  Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So section 101 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation

  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, with regard to rollcall vote number 6 on 
section 101 of House Resolution 6, I would like to clarify that I voted 
in support of the reforms to reduce the number of committees, 
subcommittees and number of staff. However, I was just informed that my 
vote was not officially recorded on the vote board. I wish to make 
clear that I voted ``yea'' on this vote.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed rollcall vote No. 6, 
requiring committee staff reductions of 33 percent. If I had been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  I strongly support section 101 of the House Rules committee reducing 
committee staff by one-third. As chairman of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, I feel this is a reasonable provision that allows 
Congress to set an example while saving tax dollars. Although the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee absorbed the Government 
Operations, District of Columbia, and Post Office and Civil Service 
Committees, we have successfully managed to cut the committee's staff 
by nearly 50 percent without jeopardizing its capacity to carry out its 
legislative and oversight functions. I support this measure because it 
sends a strong signal to the American people that we are serious about 
making the Federal Government cost less and work better.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Section 102 is now debatable 
for 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] will be recognized 
for 10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] will 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SANFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, my parents raised me to tell the truth. 
They taught me that hiding behind misleading words was the same as 
telling a lie, and as our Nation is threatened by the debt as it 
spirals out of control, and as I look at my two small boys, I realize 
that they, and maybe even their children, will have to pay for our 
refusing to meet our responsibilities.
  The question before us though is what do we do about it? One of the 
things we can do today is pass this rules change.
  As my colleagues know, for years we heard about budget cuts, yet 
spending keeps growing bigger, Why is that? Well, in the past, Mr. 
Speaker, the way Congress worked was that, if we had $150 billion of 
proposed new increases and made it $50, we called that a savings of 
$100. My colleagues and I know that's an addition of $50. That is the 
equivalent of my going down to the corner bait and tackle shop in 
Murrells Inlet, SC, looking at a rod on sale for $50 that is normally 
priced at $150, and saying, ``OK, I'll buy it.'' I walk home, walk into 
the house and say, ``Jenny, I just saved the family a hundred 
dollars.''
  She says, ``What are you doing with a new fishing rod?''
  I hold it up an say, ``It was priced at $150, and I bought it for 
$50. I saved the family a hundred dollars.''
  She says, ``Absolutely not. You just spent $50.''
  [[Page H50]] Mr. Speaker, passing this action is what the American 
public wants. It is essential if this House is going to be honest with 
the American people, and I strongly urge every Member of the House to 
support this small step toward common-sense budgeting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, we all want to cut the budget, we all 
want to reduce the deficit, we all want our constituents to pay less 
taxes. But eliminating baseline budgeting is not the way to go. The 
budget baseline predicts future spending in Government programs, 
Federal programs. It is, of course, an account of inflation. But it 
also registers population changes, the business cycle, interest rates, 
to name just a few variables.

                              {time}  1820

  It is not just the indexing of inflation. For example, the baseline 
for Medicare includes not only an inflation adjustment, but the 
estimate of how many people reach each year 65 years old. For example, 
we must know and have to plan for when the baby boomers meet 65 as an 
age and they go on Medicare. It is very significant that we understand 
these numbers.
  The increase in defense spending, that has been proposed is before 
us. But couple this with an elimination of baseline budgeting, and it 
would result in unprecedented cuts in discretionary spending. The 
people that we represent have a right to know what this means.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reconsider this proposal and to 
instead continue to implement the realistic, practical ways, that we 
have preached in the past. Baseline budgeting works. We know where we 
are coming from, we know where we are going. I urge my colleagues not 
to eliminate baseline budgeting as we do the budget in this upcoming 
fiscal year.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today we vote on the first step necessary to end the 
Alice in Budgetland spending practices that have wasted the American 
people's tax dollars and threaten our children's future. Congressman 
Sanford's leadership in introducing the Truth in Budgeting Baseline 
Reform will require Congress to live according to the same spending 
rules that govern the American people.
  Before today, the budget process assumed that spending would increase 
from year to year, regardless of new laws. Under the old rules, the 
starting point, or baseline, for how much Congress spent on a program 
in 1996 would be how much was spent in 1995 plus inflation. It's no 
wonder that we ran up $4.5 trillion in debt.
  Under this budget-speak, government officials claimed to propose 
spending cuts when they really increased spending. Because the baseline 
included inflation, spending cuts actually meant less of an increase in 
spending, but no real cuts. The American people have decoded Congress' 
budget-speak and demanded change.
  The 104th Congress today has an opportunity to make history. I 
encourage my colleagues to pass the Truth-in-Budgeting Baseline Reform 
to force Congress to spend hardworking taxpayer's money under the same 
rules that guide the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and urge 
its passage.
  This measure requires that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost 
estimates in committee reports compare total estimated funding for a 
program with current spending, so we known what the real increases are.
  But let's be clear, this is only a change in the numbers that must be 
used in committee report language. It is not a change in the existing 
CBO baseline--nor alone will this change actually cut spending.
  I hope in the coming weeks that the new congressional leadership will 
bring legislation to the Floor to require the use of an actual year 
spending baseline. Such a change--which was proposed in the last 
Congress and received my strong support--could significantly alter our 
budgeting process and reduce spending by tens-of-billions of dollars. 
In addition, I hope the new leadership will expedite consideration of 
other budget process reforms like the Deficit Reduction Lockbox, which 
can significantly reduce our budget deficit.
  There may be a change in the partisan numbers in the Congress, but 
the budget deficit math has not changed. Working together in bipartisan 
fashion to sustain the recent significant downward reduction of the 
deficit will be major test of the credibility of this new Congress. 
That work begins today.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple matter dealing with baseline 
budgeting versus the truth in budgeting which we are trying to get done 
here. I think the American public needs to understand with what we are 
dealing. In our baseline budgeting now we add inflation, we add 
demographic increases, we add differences in programs that may come 
along. But the bottom line is we do not look at the same dollars we had 
the year before.
  It is tough to balance a budget in Washington, DC. We have 
authorizations, we have appropriations, we have authorizations, we have 
appropriations, we have the debt which we have to pay. We borrow from 
the Social Security trust fund. We have something called tax 
expenditures, which is really a way of saying that we are reducing the 
amount of money we are going to collect. And the time has come to get 
this to the point where we understand it.
  If we go to truth in budgeting, we are going to be like every 
household in the United States of America, we are going to be like 
every business in the United States of America, we are going to be like 
virtually every other governmental budget in the United States of 
America. We are going to take the numbers from the year before and we 
going to build our budget to that. If we have to add to it, so be it, 
we will add to it. But we will not be misleading the American people. 
We will know that any reduction below the baseline or current severance 
level is a real cut or increase, and that is what we have to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will all support this as the beginning of 
better budget practices in the United States of America.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today begins dramatic change in 
how Government operates. For the first time in decades, we will start 
talking straight with the American people about the Federal budget.
  Every American family who must meet a budget understands that an 
increase in spending means you spent more money than last year. Not so 
here in Washington. Back in 1974 the Congress decided to adopt baseline 
budgeting--an arcane concept that allowed Government to grow on auto-
pilot for two decades. Here in Washington an increase in Federal 
spending is considered a cut in spending unless it exceeds the 
estimated increase in cost. That's like the perennially overweight man 
who figures he'll gain 30 pounds this year--and when it turns out he 
only gained 10 he announces he's lost 20 pounds.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, all that deception stops. From now on, an 
increase in spending will be called an increase in spending. If we 
spend $1.4 trillion this year and plan to spend $1.5 trillion next 
year, we'll call that exactly what is--a $100-billion increase in 
spending. Sounds simple, but here in Washington it is revolutionary.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman 
[[Page H51]] of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to oversell what we are trying 
to do here today. What essentially we are talking about is 
presentation. And presentation is important, it is like language. If 
you do not communicate in terms that people can understand, they get 
very confused. And this is the first small step at being able to 
explain to the American people precisely what we are doing with 
spending.
  Now, when you are talking about discretionary spending, that is not 
the confusing part of this whole budget process, because there is no 
assumption that we will spend more next year than the previous year as 
driven by law. But when you are talking about entitlements, if you 
assume you are going to spend $7 on a Medicaid program and the next 
year you are going to spend $10 instead of $13 on a Medicaid program, 
the presentation now shows that as a $3 cut. What we wanted to say is 
last year we spent $7 and this year we are going to spend $10. We do 
not want to list it in terms of the difference. We want to list it in 
terms of the total amount of dollars being spent. We think that is a 
far more accurate way of presenting things.
  I do not think the minority, and that is the first time I have had a 
chance to say that this year, ``the minority,'' I do not think they 
have any real objection to that.
  I want to say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], that I 
in fact do intend to come with a real proposal that would repeal 
baselines and get us to this concept of zero-based budgeting without an 
assumption that every year we have to spend more.
  The bottom line is, this is the first step toward providing a more 
simple way for Americans to understand how their money is being spent, 
and it is a very important step that we need to make on this first day.

                              {time}  1830

  I would urge the House to approve this legislation. Let us make the 
first step toward communicating with the American people in terms that 
they can understand.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this amendment, but it 
has nothing to do with truth in budgeting and all the other rhetoric I 
hear on how we put budgets or appropriation bills together. Every 
appropriation bill that comes to the floor shows last year's 
appropriation, this year's appropriation, and normally, the President's 
request, no baseline.
  When we consider what has happened historically to budgets, we do 
look, and one measurement is what has happened to actual changes in 
dollars in programs from year to year. We also look at what has 
happened in appropriations and spending in relationship to inflation. 
We also at other times look at the relationship of expenditures to the 
gross national product. They are all legitimate analyses of what is 
happening to the Federal budget.
  Somehow my Republican friends seem to think that we should never 
consider the impact of inflation on Federal spending. Any family that 
looks at their budget, if their salary is frozen for a number of years, 
and the cost of food goes up, the cost of clothing goes up, the cost of 
gasoline goes up, it is obvious that they have fewer dollars to 
purchase fewer goods and services.
  The same is true of the Federal Government. We measure them in a 
variety of ways, and my friends on the other side like particularly to 
use inflated baseline when we talk about defense. The truth is that 
defense budget authority peaked in 1985. Adjusted for inflation, it has 
been cut by 35 percent. Unadjusted for inflation, it has been cut by 10 
percent.
  I tend to hear when we get that debate, my friends on the right use 
the baseline number, my friends on the left use the unadjusted 
baseline. The truth is both are active.
  This is a harmless amendment, but it does not do anything 
significantly different. It is not a new truth in budgeting amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to accomplish a great thing 
for the American people. We are going to stop using phony numbers in 
the Federal budget process. We are going to require that the 
Congressional Budget Office makes its financial projections the same 
way that American families and American businesses do.
  If we propose to spend more taxpayer money on a program in 1995 than 
we spent in 1994, we will have to call it a spending increase. 
Politicians will be forced to use the English language with the same 
meanings that working Americans do. Ultimately, when politicians can no 
longer deceive voters with words that lie, when politicians can no 
longer claim as spending cuts what are in fact spending increases, when 
politicians can no longer pretend that a 20-percent increase in 
domestic spending over the next 5 years is deficit reduction, as the 
Clinton administration has for the past 2 years, then voters can make 
their own evaluations of programs, of budgets, and ultimately, of the 
politicians who create them, with the clarity and the confidence that 
they need to make independent, intelligent, and informed choices.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlemen from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  (Mr. PARKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of section 102 of the 
rules package which addresses baseline budgeting. As a member of the 
Budget Committee, I have strongly advocated the elimination of baseline 
budgeting and supported passage of the Full Budget Disclosure Act last 
August which accomplished that goal. This change in the House Rules 
reflects a provision contained in that bill, which passed the House 
although it failed to clear the Senate.
  The use of a baseline in calculating the national budget is confusing 
at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. With this rule change we 
will simply rely on actual prior year spending levels, for comparison 
purposes, when calculating spending increases or decreases for the next 
fiscal year. This is logical, sensible, and a proposal worthy of strong 
bipartisan support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this provision.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the previous chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], has 
indicated correctly that this is a good start, and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has indicated he is going to introduce the bill that 
is going to go all the way. This is not truth in budgeting, but at 
least it is truth in the way we report the budget to the American 
people, not pretending that there is a deficit reduction when actually 
there is a spending increase.
  Ultimately, we are going to get our bill that this House passed 
through the Senate, and it is going to become law. That is the ultimate 
goal of this first step.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is 
recognized for 2 minutes to close debate.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here in support of 
abolishing the practice of baseline budgeting, which is the accounting 
gimmick by which for so many years Congress has called a spending 
increase a cut. This really has gone on just last year.
  Just this past year Republicans proposed reforming the State 
Department, a regular target of reform. Under this reform proposal, 
actual spending on State Department functions would have increased by 
$25 million year to year, but the opponents of the reform cried 
``foul.'' They said, ``You are spending less money, you are slashing 
the budget of the State Department by $77 million.'' One person's 
increase is 
[[Page H52]] another person's cut. There is no common denominator.
  How does this work? Let me demystify it. We just finished New Year's 
Day and a lot of people spent time in front of their television sets 
eating take-out pizza.
  Let us imagine last year on New Year's Day you ate five pieces of 
pizza. This year, it was so much fun last year, you decided to eat 10 
pieces of pizza. Your friends told you that would be truly piggish, you 
ought to cut back, so you settle on seven.
  Under baseline budgeting you can claim to have slashed your pizza 
consumption by 30 percent because you are only having 7 pieces instead 
of the 10 that you want.
  What we are going to say in this reform is, you are increasing your 
pizza consumption 40 percent. Be honest with yourself. You are having 
seven this year instead of the five you had last year.
  That is real budgeting, real figures, something the American people 
can understand.
  Thomas Jefferson once noted ``He who permits himself to tell a lie 
once finds it much easier to do so a second and a third time. The 
falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time, 
depraves all good dispositions.''
  Mr. Speaker, Jefferson was right. The baseline is a lie. It is one 
that has eaten away at the credibility of this Congress. It is time we 
repeal the practice forthwith. I am delighted to be here urging my 
colleagues to vote aye on this important reform.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on section 102 has 
expired. The question is on section 102 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421, 
nays 6, not voting 7, as follows.
                              [Roll No 7]

                               YEAS--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--6

     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hilliard
     Kennelly
     Nadler
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clay
     Danner
     DeLay
     Funderburk
     Gingrich
     Salmon
     Yates

                             {time}   1854

  Mr. MINETA and Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So section 102 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation
       Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed 
     rollcall no. 7 regarding the reform of baseline budgeting. I 
     was with the Republican Whip, Tom DeLay, and because my 
     beeper malfunctioned I was not aware that a vote was taking 
     place. Had I been on the floor, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
     Rollcall no. 7.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Section 103 of the resolution 
is now debatable for 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] will be recognized for 
10 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here today as 
a new Member of this House as we embark upon a momentous change 
programmed to reform the Congress and our Government. The people of the 
State of Washington have sent me here to participate in this historic 
Congress which begins its first day specifically fulfilling the pledge 
of the Contract With America by reforming our own workplace before we 
enact other reform measures.

                              {time}  1900

  As part of this great beginning, I rise today in strong support of 
section 103 of the contract for a new House, which will limit the 
Speaker to four consecutive terms and committee and subcommittee 
chairmen to three consecutive terms.
  [[Page H53]] Today term limits are not thought of as radical or 
controversial and, indeed, many States have enacted some kind of term-
limits legislation including my home State of Washington. What makes 
our actions today extraordinarily novel is our willingness to change 
practices of the past by decentralizing the House's power structure 
away from committee chairmen with virtually lifetime appointments in 
favor of individual Members. This reform is also at the heart of the 
strategy for conservative governance that we will pursue in the first 
100 days of this new Congress as we seek the devolution of authority 
from Federal lawmakers and bureaucrats back to individual citizens, a 
reenergized civil society, if you will.
  No more will the House of Representatives be charged with stifling 
public debate and restricting innovative ideas. In the watershed 
November elections, the citizens of our Nation conferred upon us the 
authority to seriously reduce the size and scope of Government.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, after his great victories in 
the Revolutionary War, Gen. George Washington won the admiration of the 
world by resigning his commission and demonstrating his commitment to 
democracy. In this great tradition of selfless leadership, I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes to adopt the 
resolution to limit the terms of the Speaker and committee chairmen and 
subcommittee chairmen to demonstrate to the American people our 
commitment to democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, this evening we have the opportunity to 
implement a reform that is being demanded by America. Term limits of 
committee chairs and subcommittee chairs is something that has arrived 
in terms of American political thought. This is not directed towards 
any particular committee Chair or subcommittee Chair. However, it is a 
part of trying to constantly improve and renew the American political 
process.
  Imposing term limits on those that serve in leadership capacity will 
broaden the base of experience and expertise of people that provide the 
all-important leadership in this institution. By rotating the 
leadership, we are turning it over. We are bringing in fresh blood new 
ideas, new ways of thinking. We can be more responsive to the needs of 
America. We can also avoid the parochial service that has occasionally 
occurred when a person is focused on his narrow area.
  It also breaks down what might be characterized as cozy relationships 
that can build up over an extended period of time, and assures that we 
have the freshness, the openness, and the access that all Members need 
in order to fully participate in the process of this institution, and 
most effectively represent the interests of their congressional 
districts and the interests of America.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an important bipartisan effort, 
and I appreciate the opportunity that we now have this evening to cast 
a vote on this and hopefully implement this as a reform in our body.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given the time to speak on the 
important issue of term limits for committee chairmen. It is an issue 
in which I have been involved for over 2 years and am pleased that we 
now have the opportunity to consider and pass this fundamental and 
much-needed reform.
  The current system of unlimited terms for committee chairmen created 
an unjust situation in Congress, for up until the recent elections, 
power had become far too concentrated and entrenched. A handful of 
Members were able to dictate the legislative agenda, frequently based 
on efforts to protect committee turf or consolidate power of chairmen. 
Consequently, the committee structure became mired in a stagnant 
existence completely out of touch with the American people.
  Republicans have long recognized the problems with unlimited terms 
for committee chairmen. In December 1992 I introduced a rule to the 
Republican rules package to limit the ranking minority members to three 
terms as ranking member of a committee. The rule was adopted by the 
Republican Conference and was called by the New York Times and the 
Washington Post the Linder rule.
  Now the Republicans have gained the majority in the House of 
Representatives. It is time for the whole House to adopt this rule and 
limit the terms of all committee chairmen to three consecutive terms.
  Adopting this measure would help put an end to the cozy relationships 
with special interests, enhance free flow of new and innovative ideas 
and bring an end to an iron-fisted ruling in Congress by a very few 
people.
  I am gratified that this limit on the tenures of committee chairmen 
is included in the rules package of the 104th Congress. I believe that 
it truly represents the fundamental change in the status quo that the 
American people voted for last November 8.
  I urge its passage.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of ambivalence about this particular 
provision.
  If the majority party, the Republican Party, wants to limit the terms 
of its chairs and the Speaker, that is their business. I would just 
make a historical reference, which is that the Democratic Party has not 
had problems limiting terms when those Chairs have proven or fallen 
short of the perform standards that we felt we needed to set. For 
instance, I know that in my lifetime here I have seen the year when 
three full committee Chairs were removed from their positions by the 
action of the Democratic caucus. I have seen in other Caucuses lesser 
numbers of Chairs removed because, for whatever reasons, the caucus 
felt that they were not performing the job as well as they could or 
perhaps there was someone else that needed to perform it.
  Be that as it may, if the Republican Party feels that it needs to 
have some kind of hard, ironclad agreement because it will not take the 
steps that are really necessary for all of us to take because there are 
times you do need to suck it up and just go out and say to somebody, 
``The time is over; you are not doing the job that we expect of you.''
  But as I say, if the majority party wants to do that, that is its 
business.
  I suppose I do have one concern. The concern is this: If this is true 
term limits, and it is term limits of three terms of committee Chairs, 
then I do not understand why the Speaker receives a fourth term. 
Because why is the Speaker treated differently than the committee 
chairs? Because this is a closed rule, we are not able to offer the 
amendment that would say that everybody is in the same boat, everybody 
is limited in the same manner, and there is also something I do not 
understand. If later many Members decide to enact or try to enact a 
term limit on Members that would be 6 years, am I led to believe then 
the Speaker can serve longer than the Members serve?
  At any rate, these are questions not answered in this and, because 
this is a relatively closed rule, we are not able to offer an amendment 
to square that and to bring it to some sort of logical nexus.
  At any rate, as I say, we in the Democratic Party have removed Chairs 
when we felt it was necessary. Now it is felt that apparently there 
needs to be some kind of ironclad limitation.
  Mr. SPEAKER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, at the opening of the 103d 
Congress, upon my initiative, Republicans proposed to limit the time a 
Member could chair a committee. Democrats rejected this initiative, 
which would have applied to their chairs. Today, Republicans again 
offer term limits for chairs--of committees and subcommittees--and it 
will now apply to us, the new majority party.
  This initiative will do much off what congressional term-limiters 
want to accomplish: it will break up the long-term power fiefdoms of 
committee and subscommittee chairs that often lead 
[[Page H54]] Members to be elected over and over again when otherwise 
they would have been retired. It will mean a chair will have just 6 
years to work his or her agenda, then move on.
  But, it will leave to the people the final decision as to whether a 
Member should continue to represent them in Congress, where our 
founders believed that decision should be left under the Constitution.
  It will mean a far more dynamic body, one less in thrall to special 
interests, one more attuned to the interests of the Nation as a whole.
  I suspect the Democrats will strongly support this initiative now 
that it applies to Republic chairs. It is only sad that they could not 
have supported it 2 years ago and been leaders in reforming this body 
rather than obstructors.
                              {time}  1910
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Does the gentleman from West 
Virginia seek recognition?
  Mr. WISE. At this time Mr. Speaker we have no additional speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an incoming subcommittee 
chairman to strongly support term limits for all committee and 
subcommittee chairs. As with all reform measures before Congress, it is 
essential for us to lead by example.
  Most Americans support term limits. My home State of Massachusetts 
recently passed a voter referendum for term limits. In the same spirit 
of government reform, I rise in strong support for limiting the terms 
of committee or subcommittee chairmen.
  In the past, too much power reside in the hands of committee chairmen 
to shape and mold legislation to their personal liking.
  Some Chairs had become entrenched in their positions of power for 10, 
14, or more years, sometimes fulfilling their own parochial interests 
over the greater good of the Nation. By enacting term limits for these 
Chairs, we will insure that the legislative process will truly be open 
to new ideas because it will be open to new leadership. This House has 
already limited membership on two committees, the Budget Committee and 
the Intelligence Committee. This step will extend that to limiting how 
long Members may serve as a Chair of a committee. The results of the 
November election sent a loud and clear message for real change in 
Washington. We can answer that signal by voting for this proposal.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina, [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with two observations for my colleagues. 
One is, what incredible progress on the term limit effort. Who would 
have thought 2 years ago, when I came to this body, that we would be 
voting today on a rule that would limit committee chairmen to three 2-
year terms. What incredible progress for the term limit effort, and I 
have to say, too, it is very important as an indication of what is in 
this Contract for America and the exciting things we can do if we stick 
to the contract.
  The second observation I have for any Members who are somewhat 
questioning whether we need to do this, a look at the statistics about 
the average stay of the Members of the leadership of the old Congress. 
According to the Term Limits Legal Institute, the average American 
keeps his or her job 6 years. The average Member of Congress keeps his 
or her job 10 years. But the average Member of the leadership in the 
old Congress kept his or her jobs for 28 years.
  That is why we need to limit committee chairmen to three 2-year 
terms, and that is why we have got a historic opportunity right here 
right, right now, to have real reform in this House.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker and Members, we are talking 
about term limits today, and the majority party, like the gentleman 
from West Virginia, who yielded to me, I have no problem with the 
majority party limiting the terms of their chairmen, but I think this 
goes to the heart of the issue: that we have an arbitrary term limit on 
any office.
  Are we going to limit a chairman or chairwoman simply to three terms 
simply because they are doing their job correctly? This is an issue 
that this House will deal with whether we are talking about Members, 
chairmen of committees, Members of Congress, or anything else. But I 
would hope, as a Democrat, as the minority, we might be able to go even 
further and, in some cases, even limit the terms of the majority party 
chairmen to one term at this time.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. We have one speaker left, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington has the right to 
close, and I expect the Chair would like me to go ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me tell you 
why. It has been my privilege to serve on the House Appropriations 
Committee now for 10 years, and during that period of time I have tried 
my best to become well versed with the challenging information and the 
legislation that we are forced to consider each year as we pass the 
appropriations.
  I have also had the honor of serving for 2 years as chairman of a 
subcommittee which the gentleman from Washington is going to serve on 
now, the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations.
  That subcommittee, one of the smaller appropriations subcommittees, 
appropriates $67 billion a year. We have three staff people. I can 
literally tell you that it takes years to get your arms around the 
Department of Agriculture, with 125,000 employees spread all over the 
world, and the Food and Drug Administration, with its massive 
responsibility.
  I felt, after several years of service there, that I was prepared to 
take over the chairmanship. I think that with the then-ranking minority 
member, Joe Skeen of New Mexico, we did a good job. We cut back on some 
wasteful spending, we saved some money for taxpayers, we were able to 
get beyond the bureaucratic background noise and yet down to the 
business of really appropriating in a responsible manner.
  Now, of course, because of the verdict of the voters on November 8, 
our roles have changed. Joe SKeen of New Mexico will be chairman of the 
subcommittee, and I will be ranking minority member. I will look 
forward to working with him.
  The point I am trying to make is this: Experience on the subcommittee 
prepared me to do what the voters sent me to Washington to do, to take 
a look at a complex and large appropriation and to try to lead a 
bipartisan effort to deal with it. Should my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives on the Democratic side have reached a decision that I 
was unworthy of that job, they could have removed me in any Congress. 
That, I think, is the appropriate way to approach this.
  To establish artificial limits for service as committee chair or 
subcommittee chairman or service in the House of Representatives I 
think is grossly unfair.
  Experience counts for every aspect of life; it counts in the 
Congress.
  I think artificial limits are wrong, and I oppose this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I have left.
  Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of change, I am going to tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, that so many have started out by saying that, ``I am not going 
to use my time,'' and then of course we know the inevitable story. 
Well, I am not going to use all my time except simply to ask, I am 
still waiting for an answer to my question, which is: Why is it that 
the Speaker has a 4-term limitation, committee chairs have 3 terms? If 
there is an abuse or possible abuse of power with 3 terms for committee 
chairs, certainly the Speaker, with the power that the Speaker's chair 
has, 
[[Page H55]] whoever the Speaker might be of whatever party, we ought 
to limit that in the same nature as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to address what the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] said as to why the Speaker is given 8 
years and the subcommittee chairmen 6. The reason why that was designed 
that way is simply because the Speaker is next in line after Vice 
President to the Presidency, and it conforms with the concept of two 4-
year terms of the President of the United States. That is the rationale 
that went into that.
  The reason for the 6-year term limit for committee chairmen is simply 
that that seemed to us to be the right number. It may be a little 
arbitrary, maybe it could have been 8, maybe it could have been 4. The 
point is we need to limit the length of time somebody serves as 
committee chairman. That is the single most important limit we are 
placing here, even more important than limiting the Speaker, in my 
judgment. It was perhaps one of the most important reasons why we have 
debated over the years that we need term limits. Most Americans 
realize, when you give power to a committee chairman or a subcommittee 
chairman for a long period of time, you are giving very serious power 
to one individual who can abuse that power. Many do not, but somebody 
can.
  The control that a committee chairman has is vast. He controls, 
often, whether a bill ever leaves his committee to come to the floor of 
the House for a vote. He controls a lot of the substance that goes into 
the bill before that bill comes out of a committee or leaves the 
committee in the first place.
                              {time}  1920

  And in a conference between a bill that has passed the House and the 
Senate, between those two bodies, the committee chairman has a great 
deal to say with what is in the final product, an awful lot to say. In 
addition to that, a committee chairman is in charge of oversight 
functions. There are hearings that are held by the committees that he 
determines which ones are held to look into whether it is the FBI, or 
the Drug Enforcement Administration, and in the case of my Committee on 
the Judiciary it may be oversight hearings like Whitewater in Banking 
or whatever. A committee chairman, the right committee chairman, can do 
a great job for a long period of time. The wrong committee chairman can 
abuse that power, and, yes, somebody can remove him, but it does not 
happen very often.
  And the bottom line is:
  For the health of this Nation it is much better to alternate who are 
the committee chairmen of various committees and subcommittees over a 
reasonable period of time, and 6 years, it seems to us, is very, very 
reasonable under these circumstances. There are a lot of very talented 
men and women among our 435, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. It is a very 
important resolution, probably the most important one tonight that we 
will vote on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). All time for debate on section 
103 of the resolution has expired.
  The question is on section 103 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 355, 
nays 74, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:
                              [Roll No. 8]

                               YEAS--355

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--74

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Bryant (TX)
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Stark
     Stokes
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Wise
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Dellums
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clay
     Gingrich
     Harman
     Yates

                              {time}  1936

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.
  [[Page H56]] Mr. BALDACCI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. ORTIZ changed his vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
  So section 103 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 8 on H.R. 6, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

                              {time}  1940

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilirakis). Pursuant to the rule, 
section 104 of the resolution is now debatable for 20 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] will be recognized 
for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. 
Seastrand].
  (Mrs. SEASTRAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer yet another fundamental change to 
the way business is done in the House of Representatives.
  Every one of us was elected by our constituents to do a job. Having a 
job means showing up for work every day--as most working Americans are 
required to do--and actively carrying out the duties to which we are 
assigned.
  The process of voting by proxy violates this basic responsibility. By 
allowing for proxy voting in the first place, it was never intended 
that: Representatives should stop representing; that they should never 
go to committee hearings; that they should never hear the testimony 
provided for them to make informed decisions; that they should never 
hear the critical evidence that might help them form opinions; and 
finally proxy voting was never intended that committee chairs should 
hold enough proxies to determine the outcome of legislation--regardless 
of the testimony, the evidence, the views of other Members, or the fact 
that some Members may have never bothered to attend a single committee 
meeting.
  Proxy voting, or ghost voting as it is sometimes referred to, allows 
a committee chair to do whatever he or she wants to do.
  I would think this practice of proxy voting would be offensive to 
those Members who faithfully attend committee meetings and listen 
carefully to the testimony offered and the evidence presented so they 
can cast an informed vote. A vote, unfortunately, which is cast in vain 
because no matter what was said, the Chair holds enough proxies to do 
whatever he or she wants.
  This is not a responsible way to legislate and the people who elected 
us have every right to expect more.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is one reason today that we are introducing 
this historic package of fundamental reforms, including the elimination 
of proxy voting, it is to let the American people know that the 104th 
Congress will begin to legislate responsibly and with total 
accountability.
  I submit to you that it is necessary to eliminate proxy voting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this proposal, and I commend the gentlewoman 
for leading the effort on it this evening. As she pointed out, I think 
correctly, in the real world if you work in a factory or you work in an 
office, you have to show up for work. You cannot send a proxy. It 
should be no different for Members of Congress in their committee 
assignments.
  However, while I support this provision, I do not think it, frankly, 
goes far enough. I would like to talk a little bit about the issue of 
committee ratios here.
  For many years Republicans have argued, and very well, I might add, 
the makeup of the House committees should reflect the party ratios in 
the House; that is, if one party controls 60 percent of the House, then 
they should get 60 percent representation on the committees in this 
institution.
  Republicans have repeatedly offered amendments to make this simple 
rule a principle rule of the House. The Republican rules package in the 
103d Congress required that party ratios in each committee must reflect 
party ratios in the House.
  In fact, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] offered the same 
amendment to the congressional reform bill later in the year. The 
amendment was offered yet again by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Drier] when the Committee on Rules considered the congressional reform 
bill in October of last year, just 4 months ago.
  In the Senate, the other body, the new Republican majority has 
adhered to this basic principle in allocations of committee slots for 
Democrats in the new Congress. In the House, however, Republicans have 
not only abandoned their previous amendments on fair ratios, but they 
have already violated the principle they championed as recently on this 
floor and in the Committee on Rules as 4 months ago. They began by 
stripping dozens of Democrats of their committee assignments, a tactic 
never employed when Democrats controlled the House. We always made 
room. We never asked a sitting Republican on a committee to leave. We 
always somehow accommodated them, expanding the committee by putting 
temporaries on it.
  Not so, not so in this Congress. Then they announced the committee 
ratio plan, in which not a single House committee actually meets the 
clearly articulated test for fairness.
  On the major committees, and they are all major, but on the 
committees that people look to on important fiscal matters, the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations, I 
would say those two committees and the Committee on Rules, the ratios 
were way above the 53/47 split we presently have in the House of 
Representatives. In fact, on the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
Committee on Appropriations, they got 60 percent instead of 53.
  They might say, ``When you were in power you did the same thing.'' We 
may have gone a percent or 2 or 3 above. We never went 7 or 8 percent 
above, which means a lot of seats on those respective committees.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman and my colleagues for offering 
this amendment on proxy voting, but I must be honest and say that it 
does not really go far enough. If we really wanted to go far, we would 
adopt the language of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], and we 
would adopt the proposals that were advocated by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] and others on that side of the aisle to keep 
committee ratios balanced in relation to the rest of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, proxy voting is as American as apple pie. We 
have millions and millions of votes cast by proxy all the time.
  Private industry, which we are so fond of replicating, uses proxy 
voting all the time. Americans understand proxy voting. They understand 
that decision-makers who have numerous obligations sometimes use proxy 
voting as a convenience. They trust certain people and allow them to 
vote by proxies on very important matters that affect their lives.
  I am not going to quarrel, however, with a Majority that wants to 
limit their own flexibility and their own ability to conduct some 
awesome business matters here that are the province of the Majority by 
insisting on eliminating proxy voting. If they want to do that, I am 
not going to really quarrel with them.
  I am going to discuss, instead, something else that is as American as 
apple pie, and that is voting by simple majority vote.
  Later on we are going to discuss a three-fifths requirement, a 
requirement that three-fifths of the Members must approve of any income 
tax increase. I want to say that is very un-American. That runs against 
the grain of the Constitution, and the general 
[[Page H57]] way Americans conduct business. What they are doing is 
empowering a minority of people to block any legislation.
  The House has 435 voting Members. Some simple arithmetic. There are 
435 voting Members. A simple majority is 218. Three-fifths of the House 
is 261, instead of 218. Two-fifths of the House is 174 votes.
  By requiring that there must be a three-fifths vote to pass any 
legislation, we empower that two-fifths to block the legislation.
  A simple majority requirement such as is being proposed dilutes the 
power of every Member's vote by allowing the House to be controlled by 
the two-fifths, 174 out of 435, two-fifths can choose to withhold their 
votes and they control the process. That is not democracy. Instead of 
control by 218 Members, we will yield control to 174. That means that 
if you set this precedent tonight on taxes, and I am not in favor of 
voting to increase the income taxes of Americans. We have plenty of 
ways to save money in the budget and not have to increase taxes. We 
should stop the freeloading farmers, end farm subsidies, end Farmers 
Home Loan mortgages, we should stop building Seawolf submarines which 
have closed down overseas bases in Japan and Germany. There are ways to 
save billions of dollars and not have to increase taxes, but this sets 
an unfortunate precedent. This empowers a minority.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the arguments presented above, I would 
like to note the following: Requiring a supermajority vote for tax 
increases is unconstitutional because it delivers a fatal blow to 
majority rule. It gives a minority of Members the ability to stop a 
specific type of legislation. indeed, today marks the first time in 
this country's history that a majority in the House has attempted to 
usurp so much power.
  Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the ``House of 
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen * * * by the People 
of the several States.'' In Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court 
interpreted that portion of the Constitution as meaning that `'as 
nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is 
to be worth as much as another's.'' The rule before us would severely 
violate this one man, one vote principle by diluting the vote of every 
citizen. The more power that is funneled into the hands of the few, the 
less remains in the hands of the many.
  Moreover, the Constitution clearly enumerates the instances in which 
a supermajority is required. If the Framers had intended that 
submajorities be used in other instances, they would have explicitly 
stated so.
  While the Constitution does state that the House can write its own 
rules, the House and its leaders are not given carte balance. 
Therefore, in the past, Congress has required supermajority votes only 
for procedural motions, such as the two-thirds vote required in the 
House to consider a rule reported the same day. Similarly, motions in 
the House to suspend the rules and pass a bill are procedural in 
nature; if such motion is defeated, a bill may be reconsidered in the 
House under a normal rule and passed by a simple majority.
  Requiring a supermajority vote for tax increases also would set a 
perilous precedent that could be used to create similar requirements 
for other controversial issues. Which type of legislation would be next 
on the chopping block? Will any bill that increases education funding 
require a three-fifths vote for passage? Will any bill that relates to 
a woman's right to choose an abortion be subject to a three-fifths 
vote?
  Voltaire wrote, ``One despot always has a few good moments, but an 
assembly of despots never does.'' This certainly is not a good moment 
for my Republican colleagues. Of all the accusations that have been 
made about the Democrats' exercise of power during our forty-year 
tenure in the majority, nothing even comes close to rising to this 
level of the abuse of power. It is tyranny of the majority, pure and 
simple. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is proxy voting 
or ghost voting. It is a bad habit that has grown to be a serious 
disorder in the process of this institution. I notice that apparently 
no one is willing to defend proxy voting, because I certainly have not 
heard any defense from the other side of the aisle, so I guess the time 
has come to get rid of proxy voting or ghost voting and we thank very 
much what I think I am hearing correctly, is the support from the other 
side of the aisle so I think we can expect a very large vote to do away 
with this procedure which has not done credit to this institution since 
it has been a bad idea and since it has been abused so badly. I think 
we all know it, I do not think there is any particular point in 
overstressing, finding nobody supporting it, so why do we not just 
agree with it and get rid of it?
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I 
congratulate her for her effort.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is 
available on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Bilirakis]. The gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in addition to authoring our Nation's 
Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote what are supposed 
to be the rules of this House. His Manual of Parliamentary Practice was 
written in 1797, and for nearly 200 years, has by law provided the 
basis for our House rules.
  That is why I rise today in support of the Proxy Voting Ban in the 
House Republican Rules Package. If Jefferson knew that absent or tardy 
members of the House were routinely allowing other members to cast 
their votes for them in committee by proxy and that this ghost voting 
has been used to block legislation while ducking individual 
responsibility, he would object. He would wonder by what justification 
we could so stand the rules of this House which he wrote on their head.
  Although House rules strictly prohibit one member of Congress from 
casting votes for another on the House floor, proxy voting was in fact 
the norm in many committees in the last Congress. In 1993, for example, 
proxy votes were cast on virtually every bill marked up in the House 
Committees on Energy and Commerce; the Judiciary; and Public Works and 
Transportation.
  Ghost voting not only promotes absenteeism and sloppy bill-drafting, 
it allows party leaders and committee barons to control the fate of 
legislation by simply pulling votes out of thin air. It is like having 
6 jurors sit through a trial, hear all the evidence and reach a 
verdict--only to have the jury foreman pull out 6 more votes from his 
pocket and cast them to overrule the others.
  Last year, I introduced legislation to require the House to follow 
Jefferson's rules. One of Jefferson's overriding concerns was that each 
member of Congress would be held responsible for his or her own vote.
  This rules change will end the abuse of our most important and 
valuable commodity, our vote. Simply put, under this change, if a 
member does not show up for work, he does not get to vote. I urge an 
``aye'' vote for this important Republication reform.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, although every vote in the whole House 
is always important, votes in committee carry even greater 
proportionate weight. As such, committee votes should be cast by 
Members themselves, not by committee colleagues.
  Yet Capitol Hill practice in the past has been to allow proxy votes 
in committees. This has meant one Member was voting not just for 
himself but for absentees.
  Proxy holders, often the committee leadership, would vote for other 
Members who were elsewhere, possibly at another committee meeting 
voting the proxies of still more absent Members.
  Enough already. Let the Member who votes in committee be in 
committee. The American way is one person, one vote. Votes in 
congressional committees no longer should be by proxy, they should be 
in person. That is what will happen as soon as tomorrow. All it takes 
is approval of this proposal to change our rules. Let the reform go on 
as we keep faith with our promise in the Contract with America to 
change the way Congress does business. The American people will be the 
winners.
  [[Page H58]] Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, 
Section 104, the ban on proxy voting. As the Speaker knows in the chair 
who serves on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, we have not had proxy 
voting for a number of years. It has worked very, very well. We have 
good attendance at our committee meetings, subcommittee meetings and 
when we have a vote, we almost have 100 percent voting on that 
amendment, on that bill.
  We do not support proxy voting. We have not had it for 20 years in 
our Committee on Veterans Affairs, one of the most important committees 
in this Congress, and I certainly hope we would adopt this amendment.
  I would hope that the people on this side, most of us over here on 
the other side are supporting this amendment, and you would not call 
for a vote and we could move along and get out of here a little 
earlier.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Mississippi for his kind comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. 
Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, we just heard the gentleman from 
California refer to Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson loved Monticello 
but he never hesitated to spend 4 days riding horseback to come to 
Washington to personally fulfill his responsibilities.
  When we call on young men and young women to defend this Nation 
against foreign interests by placing our your men and women in harm's 
way, they do not have a choice. They must take themselves physically 
and personally to the call of their Nation. They cannot send a proxy.
  What we ask of them we must ask of ourselves. Mr. Speaker, that is 
accountability.
  The people of this great Nation expect us personally to represent 
them and their views and to be held accountable, to be in the line of 
fire and not behind the door with a proxy coming through the keyhole.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker this evening on 
this particular issue. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
                              {time}  2000

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. I 
believe that as we all are issued our brand new cards today, and each 
one of us has a sparkling new card that we insert into the boxes in 
this Chamber, these cards have been personalized, individualized, and 
secured so that it is only the Member that it is issued to that can 
cast the precious vote, the privileged vote to represent their 
constituents in this body.
  I talked to Members and I remember my freshman year in 1991 when I 
cast my first vote and continue to feel it a privilege casting votes in 
this body. It is against our rules and we have very strict measures 
when somebody else tries to cast this vote in this body. I think that 
it should be the same measures that we take in our committees, so that 
we do not have proxy voting in our committees.
  Richard Fenno, a pundit and scholar on Congress, says that the 
business of Congress is done in its committees. That does not mean we 
legislate more, that means we do the job of oversight more to be 
accountable to our constituents. I think this card helps ensure that on 
the House floor, and I think this new rule helps ensure that in our 
committees.
  This is a good measure to ban proxy voting and I commend Members to 
vote for this measure.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
  (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for 
eliminating the misguided, but long-held, congressional practice of 
allowing absentee proxy votes to take place in committee.
  Putting an end to these absentee proxy votes is a crucial part of 
fulfilling our pledge to the American people to create a more open and 
truly representative Congress. It is an important early step along the 
path of momentous change and reform that will put the people's 
government back on the right track.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am opposed to this practice which 
allows on individual to cast a vote in committee on behalf of another 
member. The people of this country have the right to expect and demand 
that those of us in Congress carry out the job we sent here to do--
namely, make the tough choices and cast our votes in person.
  Furthermore, I have an additional, and somewhat unique, reason for 
objecting to proxy voting. I am the lone representative in the U.S. 
House of Representatives from the State of Wyoming.
  I do not want a California proxy vote cancelling my vote.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the gentlemen 
from Mississippi, but hope that he understands that we in the 104th 
Congress promised in the Contract With America to have a recorded vote 
on each provision today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilirakis). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for as much as 2 minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight we bring this House back to orthodoxy by 
eliminating the vote by proxy. In any language, everyone in America 
knows that the heart and soul of the legislative process is resting 
with the committee and the committees' work in the Congress of the 
United States. Subcommittee, full committee, task force, it is the guts 
of the legislative process that happens beyond the walls of this 
Chamber, and the final action taken on this floor is really tinsel, it 
is show time, all of the work, all of the deliberation, all the 
amendments, all of the drafting, all of the crafting already having 
been accomplished in the halls of the committee system itself.
  The gentleman from Mississippi and others who have spoken so 
eloquently know that we as trustees of the card that allows us to vote 
on the floor of the House cannot transfer it to anyone else. As a 
matter of fact, it is a violation of the law, a criminal violation if 
any Member should transfer his or her card to someone else to vote that 
vote on the floor.
  Is it not an irony that that is a crime, but we permitted for so many 
years someone to vote a dozen or two dozen votes in committee with 
ghost riders in the sky elsewhere in the Capitol while a bill is being 
crafted, amended, and finally passed in committee.
  I recommend it not just because we have in the contract with the 
American the banning of proxy voting, but because the American people 
recognize that this is a fraud on the legislative process. We tonight 
end it for all time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on section 104 of the 
resolution has expired.
  The question is on section 104 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, 
nays 13, not voting 2, as follows:
                              [Roll No. 9]

                               YEAS--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     [[Page H59]] Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--13

     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Kaptur
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Scott
     Vento
     Waters
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnston
     Yates
       
                              {time}  2020

  So section 104 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). Section 105 of 
the resolution is now debatable for 20 minutes. The gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Cremeans] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans].
  (Mr. CREMEANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today I offer an amendment numbered section 105 to the House rules 
mandating public access to committee proceedings. The American people 
have spoken. Less than 2 months ago I was chosen to represent over a 
half million Ohioans, and today I become their Representative to this 
body.
  Those Ohioans have every right to know what I do here, and this 
amendment guarantees that right.
  It is appropriate that today, with what is expected to be the largest 
viewing audience of a House proceeding ever, we allow the watchful eye 
of the public into our committees as well.
  No longer will House business be allowed to take place behind locked 
and closed doors. From this point forward the public will have the 
right to view our activities.
  Our democracy is built upon having choices. On November 8 we each 
were chosen by the people to be here today. This amendment simply 
provides those same men and women with the knowledge of what choices 
each of us made while we were here.
  They deserve to know nothing less.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives is supposed to be the 
people's House. This is where the business of the American people is 
conducted, and the more sunshine that we can shine on these Chambers 
and these committee rooms, the better off the American people will be.
  The days of backroom deals are over. We make decisions in this 
building every day that affect every man, woman, and child in this 
country, and I think the American people have a right to see those 
decisions being made. But it is also time to shut out the influence of 
special interests.
  I support this amendment, and I commend those who are offering it, 
but I do not think it is enough merely to open all meetings to the 
public. We should be held accountable for all aspects of public life. 
and that means all political contributions should be disclosed as well. 
We are required by law to disclose the names of the people who 
contribute to our political campaigns, and we do. But there are some 
organizations which have an influence on this body which refuse to 
disclose who they contribute to, where they get their money from, and I 
think it is time to change that as well.
  Let me give you one example: There is an organization called GOPAC, 
which, by some accounts, has played a role in electing over 200 Members 
of this institution. Over the past 9 years, GOPAC has raised between 
$10 million and $20 million. Many of these contributions come from 
people who have a direct interest in Federal legislation. We do not 
know who these people are, where this money came from, because GOPAC 
has not disclosed the list of its past contributors.
  With deals like this, is it any wonder that the American people think 
that this Congress is for sale? I think the public has a right to know 
who these people are, and we should open our meetings and GOPAC needs 
to open all of its meetings.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, is this germane to section 105 of the 
bill that we are debating, this discussion?
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, if I could finish my remarks, I will 
address my colleague's comments because I think they are good comments. 
I think it is directly germane.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The remarks should pertain specifically to 
this portion of the resolution adopting the rules.
  [[Page H60]] Mr. BONIOR. This portion of the bill deals with open 
meetings, and that deals with open Government. And if we are going to 
have open Government, we should make sure that the contributions of the 
people are reviewed, that we know where they come from, especially as 
they affect legislation. It seems to me if GOPAC has nothing to hide, 
then they should have nothing to be afraid of. If GOPAC will not come 
clean and will not open their books, I think the American people have a 
right to ask, ``What are they trying to hide?''
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not 
germane.

                              {time}  2030


                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman 
will state his point of order.
  Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman is not germane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. We will proceed. The gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Cremeans] is recognized.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska, the home State of the national champion Nebraska Cornhuskers 
[Mr. Christensen].
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of item No. 5, the 
sunshine rule for committees, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Cremeans] for the kind gesture about the Nebraska Cornhuskers and the 
national championship we just won.
  My colleagues, on November 8 the American people sent a clear message 
to Congress: ``No more business as usual, no more backroom deals, no 
more conducting the people's work in secrecy. Enough is enough.''
  This measure puts an end to business as usual and ushers in a new era 
of openness and accountability.
  What it requires is simple--from now on all committee and 
subcommittee meetings will be open to the public and media, except in 
extraordinary circumstances involving national security or personal 
matters.
  As my colleague from the State of Washington has said, ``The days of 
the smoke-filled room and closed doors are over.'' It's time to open 
the doors, throw open the windows, and let the glorious light of 
representative democracy shine in.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am all for this. I was 
not aware that there were many meetings that were not open. Most of the 
Members I know generally try to get the press to come to their meetings 
rather than keep them away, but I think it is important that we do this 
because we not only govern ourselves, we set an example, and I think it 
is important for us to pass this by a big vote and set an example of 
openness.
  Now my friend referred to GOPAC, and he should not have, apparently 
under the rules, talked about the substance. But what is important is 
the example we will set. There are political organizations controlled 
by Members of this House that are not open. What better way to 
encourage them to do the right thing? What better way to tell the 
people of GOPAC that they should be open than for us to follow that 
same rule?
  So, let us set the example, and let GOPAC profit by our example, and 
let those who are so worried that we would even discuss it on the floor 
of the House----
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman skates very nicely on thin 
ice.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman very much for his 
acknowledgment of defeat on this issue. We can talk about openness. The 
point is----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask for an additional 30 seconds 
since I yielded to Tonya Harding over there.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I will say I meant that in 
a purely metaphorical sense, but let me say I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I think the example of openness we set here is important. Let GOPAC 
and every other political organization controlled by Members of the 
House follow the example because certainly no Member of the House would 
want to be considered so inconsistent as to vote that we will open 
meetings that no one wants to come to and then at the same time conceal 
information that people want to know about. The principle of openness 
is important. Let us hope that it sets a good example.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo], who in his first term led the protest against 
closed-door meetings.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Cremeans] for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, when I first got here I came from the State of 
California, and I represent the State of California where we do have 
open meeting laws, and we are required to conduct our business in the 
open, and, as the previous gentleman said, that he was not aware of 
very many meetings that we have that are closed to the public, but one 
of the first things that I ran into here as a new Member was a meeting 
that was closed to the public, and that was the Committee on Ways and 
Means markup of the tax increase of 1993 which was closed down to the 
public where not only the public and the press, but other Members, had 
to leave the room.
  Madam Speaker, the argument that was given to me at the time was that 
Members who are on the panel, on the committee at the time, needed to 
feel free to speak their mind and to vote their conscience, and that if 
the public were in the room, they would not be allowed to do that. That 
is exactly why we need this rules change to pass, so that the public 
knows exactly what is going on.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], our caucus chairman.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] to 
come back to the microphone because I would like to ask him about this. 
I have a copy of a letter which he signed along with the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey] and a number of other Members saying, ``Let's close 
the gift loophole for foundations, LSOs and caucuses.'' This was 
October of 1993. One of the justifications for this request was to 
require all Member-affiliated foundations to disclose contributors. 
Public disclosure of contributions will ensure the integrity of Member-
affiliated foundations and silence any criticism that special interest 
contributions are being made to influence Members of Congress.
  I wonder if the gentleman can tell me what difference there is 
between this worthy instinct that caused him to sign this letter and 
the situation that applies with GOPAC.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I think that it is pretty simple. The LSOs 
were using taxpayer money, and what we were afraid of----
  Mr. FAZIO of California. These are the foundations that get----
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will let me answer, I will tell him. It 
was combining. This was my concern, combining, commingling, official 
money with outside money, and that was my concern, and that is why I 
signed onto the letter.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. The gentleman's request was to get the 
foundation grants.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] has expired.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
[[Page H61]] from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], who served as cochairman of 
the Republican freshman class reform task force in the last Congress.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the sunshine 
rule. The Republican freshman class of 1992 made open meetings a top 
priority in our reform efforts when we took office 2 years ago. Those 
of us who came here from States with sunshine laws were shocked to 
learn that committee chairmen could lock out the American people for 
almost any reason. We were appalled when a meeting was closed to the 
public because tax increases were being discussed.
  My home State of Florida, the Sunshine State, has some of the 
toughest open meeting laws in the country. Local and State government 
improved because of those laws.
  It is time to shine a light under the done here at the U.S. Capitol. 
We can never forget that we work for the American people, and what we 
do here we do for them.
  This rule will ensure the doors remain open, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas (Mrs. Lambert Lincoln).
  (Mrs. LAMBERT LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. LAMBERT LINCOLN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. As has been said earlier in this debate, the best place to 
dry laundry is still in the sunshine, and the sunshine is still the 
best place for Congress to air our discussions about legislation.
  As we look to the committee structure to help us in deciding, 
forming, developing, and perfecting legislation, it is very critical 
for us to keep those meetings open and open to the public, the very 
people who pay our salaries and who are directly affected by the laws 
that we passed. They should certainly be welcome to see Congress in its 
action.
  Congress in committee is certainly Congress in action, and that is 
where I feel like it is most important as we look to the committee 
structure as well as the conference reports, the conference committees, 
to make sure that they do remain open to the public. Debate over these 
decisions should be held in the public eye.
  That is why I strongly support this proposal. This will not threaten 
our national security interests, because we found that classified 
information will still be protected, and that is why I support this 
legislation in opening up to the very people of the public that which 
we are here to do on their behalf.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], who led the fight for similar legislation.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  (Mr. ZIMMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZIMMER. Madam Speaker, in the 1970's, nearly every State in the 
Union enacted sweeping open public meetings laws. Inspired by Florida's 
sunshine law and spurred by citizens' organizations such as Common 
Cause, legislatures across America opened the meetings of virtually 
every State and local public body to the public.
  Congress responded only partially to this demand for reform. It left 
a gaping loophole in its rules that allowed committee meetings to be 
closed by simple majority vote for any reason or for no reason.
  It is high time for Congress to be subject to the same open meetings 
requirements that have applied for more than 20 years to the zoning 
boards and the boards of education in the smallest communities in New 
Jersey and across the Nation. Justice Louis Brandeis was right when he 
said sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is time for us to join the 
50 States and the communities of this Nation and open our doors and 
open our windows and let the sun shine in.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I salute the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership to fight on 
this, because he is right. Government is not a fungus, it can thrive in 
sunshine. But the point I think the gentleman was trying to make, too, 
that is connected to this is that the voters are not stupid, and they 
also know that some of the issues they see that will now be discussed 
in sunshine and have been in many meetings already, but what they are 
going to see in the sunshine, they know those deals may have been cut 
somewhere else. And that is why you have to let the sunshine in a 
little brighter.
  I think it goes back to the original concept I was talking about of 
the coin operated legislative machine. If you only get to see what is 
coming out of the machine, you are only seeing half of the machine. And 
that is why many of us are very disappointed tonight. We do not have an 
opportunity to amend this so that we can add sunshine as to what went 
into the machine, who was putting the coins into the machine, and is 
there a connection.
  I think the gentleman from Michigan made an excellent point, and I 
only hope next time we get a chance to make an amendment so we see 
sunshine everywhere.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new Member from 
the Buckeye State, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney]
  (Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio and 
neighboring Congressional District for yielding time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I want to stay to the subject matter, because 
obviously from this side tonight it has strayed I believe from the 
original intent of what we are talking about, which is sunshine. And 
with our good parliamentarian Bob Walker, I don't want to have him rule 
me out of order, so I am not going to talk about Ralph Nader and his 
hidden monies, and some of the labor unions and how they have monies, 
and I come from a labor area that may not necessarily have to be right 
out in the open sunshine.
  I want to stick to the subject matter, which I think we have to do, 
and that is the fact of talking about the influence of the lobbyists. 
The lobbyists are there to present people's points of view that they 
represent back in our districts, but it should be done out in the open.
  I was a participant in a closed conference committee when I chaired 
the Senate Finance Committee in Ohio. We finally came into the 21st 
Century and our colleagues opened the process up in the State. All the 
States have, and it is time we come into the 21st Century. I believe 
what we are trying to do here everybody does agree with, and urge 
support.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield one and a half minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I think we ought to be clear as to what we are talking about 
here. In my experience I have seen very few, in fact, no closed 
meetings.
  There is a very important concept known as the elephant stick. The 
elephant stick is a stick that a man carries. It is not Tonya Harding's 
stick, it is the one that you carry around Dupont Circle, and people 
say, ``What are you doing with that stick?'' And the answer is, ``Well, 
it is to keep away all the elephants.'' They say, ``Well, there aren't 
any elephants at Dupont Circle.'' Then you say, ``My stick works.''
  Now, my friends on the other side have got a lot of elephant sticks 
tonight. They are banishing nonexistent elephants at a fast and furious 
pace. If they want to take credit for it, that is fine. But I have to 
tell you that these closed meetings they talk about are widely a 
figment of their imagination.
  But I am concerned about openness in this regard: I was told we were 
going to have a new way of operating. Is it the plan, and I will be 
glad to yield to any member of the leadership on the other side, is it 
the plan to finish this rule, and then take up another separate 
important bill, the compliance bill, at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, 
and then do nothing tomorrow?
  Is that the new way of legislating, that we will take up the 
important 
[[Page H62]] question of compliance and its related issues at 2 or 3 
o'clock in the morning, keeping people here on overtime, and then 
tomorrow have nothing to do at all?
  If that is in fact the plan on the other side, I hope the leadership 
will tell us that, so some of us can suggest we ought to finish this 
bill, go home for the night, and come in tomorrow and then act on the 
compliance bill in the sunshine, not at 2 o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to my fellow 
classmate from the Commonwealth of Virginia the gentleman from 
Virginia. [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Madam Speaker, I have been in local government for 15 
years where we were subject to sunshine laws, and I believe that total 
access for the public and the media at committee meetings will end once 
and for all the controversial practice of shutting the doors to meeting 
rooms and barring the public to facilitate backroom deals with special 
interests.
  This did happen, this is one elephant on May 6th, 1993, when the 
Democratic majority excluded the public while the Committee on Ways and 
Means considered a $270 billion tax increase.
  Madam Speaker, meetings to prepare tax bills should be open to the 
public, as should other legislation that is being drafted, and these 
other committee meetings should be open as well. Open meetings will 
discourage backroom deals and increase congressional accountability. 
The committee sunshine reforms are long overdue. We apply these reforms 
to many parts of the Executive Branch. it is time we apply them to 
Congress as well.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
neighbor from Ohio, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my Ohio neighbor for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, when I came to Congress in a special election in 1993, 
the very first measure that I consponsored was something called the 
Congressional Sunshine Act. As many in this Chamber will recall, that 
was to be part of the great reform movement of the 103d Congress. The 
reforms never happened.
  I am very pleased we have the opportunity tonight to act on this 
measure. I am very pleased to see we have some new converts, who had 
the chance to cosponsor this bill last year and chose not to.
  Madam Speaker, the Sunshine Act was the first bill I consponsored 
because it seemed indefensible to me, that with the exceptions listed 
in this rule, there is a need to hold hearings behind closed doors. 
What are we afraid of? What scares us so much about public scrutiny?
  In a free and open society, shouldn't Congress--the People's House--
take the lead in providing access? In giving assurances to our 
constituents that they'll have a bird's eye view of what is going on in 
their government?
  As we all know, many of the most critical public policy decisions are 
made at the committee level; we've got to ensure that the American 
people--the people who sent us here--are part of that process. No 
reform is more important to a more accountable Congress.
  I'm pleased that this measure has finally been given the chance to 
see the light of day. Now, let's vote to shine that light--freedom's 
torch--on our own proceedings.
                              {time}  2050

  As we all know, the most critical public policy decisions around here 
are made at the committee level. They affect all Americans. We have to 
ensure that the American people, the people who sent us here, are part 
of that decisionmaking process. No reform is more important, I believe, 
Madam Speaker, to accountability than this measure.
  I am pleased this measure has finally been given the chance to see 
the light of day. Now let us shine that light, freedom's torch, on all 
of our proceedings.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by suggesting that this is a good 
amendment that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans] has suggested. I 
think it is time, I said earlier, that we let the sunshine in on all of 
our workings in this institution and our committees, but I again invite 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let the sunshine in on 
those who have contributed through GoPAC to those campaigns.
  I think with important legislation coming before us so quickly in 
this session, and there will be significant legislation that we will 
have before us in the next 90 days, it is important that the American 
people understand who contributed, how much, when they contributed, and 
in what States. We do not have that information now. Every other 
political campaign committee has to disclose. GoPAC should be no 
exception.
  I would encourage and urge my colleagues in calling for revelations 
of their contributions. It seems to me that if GoPAC has nothing to 
hide, then it should have nothing to be afraid of. If GoPAC will not 
come clean and will not open their books, I think the American people 
have the right to ask what GoPAC is hiding.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, to close the debate on this vital rule 
change, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], 
who led the charge on the issue in the last Congress, fighting for a 
Sunshine Act in the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank all the people who have 
helped on the Sunshine Act. This is a wonderful moment for many of us, 
a real moment of true reform.
  Almost 2 years ago, Representative Rich Pombo and the Republican 
freshmen and I spearheaded a freshman Republican class project to put 
an end to closed-door sessions where public business was done in 
private. Specifically, and I want to inform the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], we had been outraged when the then chairman, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] escorted the public and 
the press out of a committee meeting and closed the meeting so no one 
would see Democrats voting to raise taxes retroactively, while every 
single Republican opposed them.
  As the only freshman on the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress, it was then my privilege to continue to push this item in the 
last Congress, but the majority in the last Congress was not friendly 
to reform, Madam Speaker. The Sunshine Act and other important reforms 
were bottled up in committee and stalled to seeming death.
  However, those reforms did not die. Instead, they are being enacted 
today by a new majority, and this sunshine rule is the direct 
descendent of our effort 2 years ago. Now finally the rules will be 
changed. The public now has the right to see the public's business 
being conducted. After all, Madam Speaker, the public pays for the 
process. They should be able to view the process.
  Now on this opening day, as reforms begin, let the public watch their 
public servants. Let the press report events based on eyewitness 
accounts. Let the television cameras be our eye on the process, when we 
cannot be here in Washington, DC.
  Madam Speaker, let the sunshine in.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). All time has 
expired. The question is on section 105 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 431, 
nays 0, not voting 2, as follows:
                              [Roll No 10]

                               YEAS--431

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     [[Page H63]] Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gunderson
       
     Yates

                              {time}  2107

  So, section 105 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Section 106 of the resolution is 
now debatable for 20 minutes. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Lewis] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman 
at this time for an amendment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Fox] is recognized for 10 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Ms. WATERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk in this 
section. This is a section that increases the vote requirement for 
raising taxes from a simple majority to a three-fifths majority. I wish 
to protect Social Security from being cut by a simple majority. Why can 
I not add this amendment at this time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman should be advised that under 
the rule that amendment is not in order at this time.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FOX asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, last year's budget debate proved how easy it is 
for Congress to impose higher taxes and increased spending on the 
American people. Today we take a significant step toward making tax 
increases infinitely more difficult.
  The goal of this new rule is twofold. First, it will require three-
fifths majority vote for tax increase measures and amendments. 
Additionally, it will place a prohibition on retroactive tax increases.
  Had the three-fifths requirement been in effect during the 103d 
Congress, the Clinton tax increase would not have passed. Instead of it 
passing by only one vote and with the support of only one party, a 
clear bipartisan consensus would have been required.
  The retroactive tax increases, which added insult to injury, would 
not have been possible had the new rule been in effect. Taxes would not 
have been raised for 8 retroactive months for millions of hard working 
Americans, small business owners and senior citizens.
  If Members believe Americans are undertaxed, they will not favor 
these proposals. But if they believe, as I do, we must be cautious 
about tax increases and they were appalled by the spectacle of last-
minute deals which accompanied the 1993 tax increase, they ought to 
support this reform.
  The largest tax increase in American history was passed August 5, 
1993, by just one vote and with no bipartisan support. That will not 
happen in this new Congress. A tax increase enacted could only happen 
in the future if it has the broad support of Democrats and Republicans 
working together when all other reasonable alternatives have been 
exhausted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing this 
amendment to our attention.
  As you know, this amendment to the House Rules provides for a three-
fifths or 60 percent vote as a necessity to pass any income tax 
increase. I first introduced this concept in the form of a rule change 
on Tax Freedom Day, May 8, 1991. I recognized then, as I do now, that 
our choices in methods used to balance the budget involve two very 
difficult types of decisions. First, do we raise taxes, or second, do 
we hold down spending to bring the budget into balance.
  History shows quite clearly that when faced with those two difficult 
options, this House has historically opted to increase taxes. Why? 
Simply because it has always been the easier of the two.
  For example, in 1990, in the name of deficit reduction, the House 
leadership went off to Andrews Air Force Base with President Bush and 
his staff and, in the name of deficit reduction, arrived at an 
agreement to increase taxes to once and for all put this deficit 
problem behind us. It didn't work.
  [[Page H64]] So then, in 1993, once again in the name of deficit 
reduction, this time led by President Clinton and the Democrat 
leadership, Congress foisted the biggest tax increase in this country's 
history upon the American people to once and for all get the deficit 
reduction problem behind us. It didn't work either.
  The fact of the matter is that, in 1990, the Andrews Air Force Base 
tax deal was put together because we had projected a horrendous $170 
billion deficit by 1995. Today, after two tax increases and our failure 
to hold down spending, the deficit at this year's end is projected to 
be $180 billion, that's right, $10 billion more than had been projected 
previously in 1990.
  Once again, I point out that this is after the two largest tax 
increases in our country's history. We're not fooling anyone. Congress 
has always taken the easy way out and we have never solved our deficit 
problem by raising taxes.
  The problem, as one Joint Economic Committee study shows, is that for 
each dollar in tax increases we have historically increased spending by 
$1.59. Therefore, it is clear that the route of least resistance, 
increasing taxes, has not worked. This rule change will tend to put 
better balance in that process.
  Some have indicated a concern regarding the constitutionality of this 
measure. Let me put those concerns to rest. I would like to quote from 
an article that appeared in the Washington Times on December 20, 1994 
by Bruce Fein.

       Supermajority voting rules are constitutional and 
     legislative commonplaces.
       The U.S. Supreme Court blessed the constitutionality of 
     supermajority restraints on the tax and spending propensities 
     of government in Gordon vs. Lance (1971). At issue were 
     provisions of West Virginia laws that prevented political 
     subdivisions from incurring bonded indebtedness or increasing 
     tax rates beyond limits fixed in the West Virginia 
     Constitution without the approval of 60 percent of the voters 
     in a referendum election. Writing for the majority, Chief 
     Justice Warren Burger stressed the political incentive for 
     prodigality when the cost can be saddled on future 
     generations without any political voice: ``It must be 
     remembered that in voting to issue bonds voters are 
     committing, in part, the credit of infants and of generations 
     yet unborn, and some restriction on such commitment is not an 
     unreasonable demand.''
       The burden of federal income tax rate increases, unlike 
     bonded indebtedness, must be fully borne by current votes. 
     But they typically are targeted at a minority slice of the 
     electorate, such as those increases championed by the Clinton 
     administration and enacted by the 103d Congress. And the 
     revenues generated by tax rate increases are 
     characteristically dedicated to spending programs that 
     benefit voters who escaped the tax increase--for example, 
     food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, housing, job training, 
     education, and farm subsidies. Mr. Solomon's 60 percent 
     supermajority voting rule for tax rate increases is thus a 
     healthy corrective to the natural inclination of simple 
     majorities to fasten an unfair proportion of the costs of 
     government on minorities. The same is true regarding Mr. 
     Solomon's recommended ban on retroactive rate increases that 
     invariably mulct a small percentage of the electorate.

  Support this rule change. It is an essential element in restructuring 
our fiscal process.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the Washington 
Times of December 20, 1994 entitled ``Solomon's Wise House Discipline'' 
on this subject, as follows:

       House Rules Committee chairman-designate Gerald Solomon 
     deserves laurels for proposed rule changes that would 
     counteract the propensity of legislators to levy unfair or 
     oppressive taxes to fund run-away spending. Mr. Solomon will 
     recommend to the 104th Congress rules that would prohibit 
     retroactive increases in federal income tax rates, and would 
     require at least 60 percent House majorities to approve 
     prospective rate jumps.
       These types of procedural checks on majoritarian 
     foolishness or over-reaching are neither unconstitutional nor 
     novel; they represent praiseworthy efforts to overcome skewed 
     political incentives that systematically divorce government 
     taxes and spending from public sentiments or the nation's 
     future welfare. Indeed, the House and Senate should require 
     supermajorities to approve legislation that would increase 
     tax levies of any sort (not just federal income tax rates), 
     increase federal government spending, or impose substantial 
     spending mandates on states, localities or private 
     enterprise.
       Supermajority voting rules are constitutional and 
     legislative commonplaces. For instances, two-thirds 
     majorities in both houses of Congress are required to 
     override a presidential veto or to propose constitutional 
     amendments, and a two-thirds Senate vote is required to 
     ratify treaties or to convict of an impeachable offense. Many 
     state constitutions prohibit or tightly circumscribe the 
     power of the legislature to levy new taxes or to increase 
     bonded indebtedness. And U.S. Senate rules require 
     supermajorities to end filibusters or to waive balanced 
     budget requisites for proposed legislation. Thus, the Uruguay 
     Round GATT implementing bill necessitated a 60 percent 
     majority to waive the Senate's balanced budget rule.
       The U.S. Supreme Court blessed the constitutionality of 
     supermajority restraints on the tax and spending propensities 
     of government in Gordon vs. Lance (1971). At issue were 
     provisions of West Virginia laws that prevented political 
     subdivisions from incurring bonded indebtedness or increasing 
     tax rates beyond limits fixed in the West Virginia 
     Constitution without the approval of 60 percent of the 
     voters.
      in a referendum election. Writing for the majority, Chief 
     Justice Warren Burger stressed the political incentive for 
     prodigality when the costs can be saddled on future 
     generations without any political voice. ``It must be 
     remembered that in voting to issue bonds voters are 
     committing, in part, the credit of infants and of 
     generations yet unborn, and some restriction on such 
     commitment is not an unreasonable demand.''
       The burden of federal income tax rate increases, unlike 
     bonded indebtedness, must be fully borne by current votes. 
     But they typically are targeted at a minority slice of the 
     electorate, such as those increases championed by the Clinton 
     administration and enacted by the 103rd Congress. And the 
     revenues generated by tax rate increases are 
     characteristically dedicated to spending programs that 
     benefit voters who escaped the tax increase--for example, 
     food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, housing, job training, 
     education and farm subsidies. Mr. Solomon's 60 percent 
     supermajority voting rule for tax rate increases is thus a 
     healthy corrective to the natural inclination of simple 
     majorities to fasten an unfair proportion of the costs of 
     government on minorities. The same is true regarding Mr. 
     Solomon's recommended ban on retroactive rate increases that 
     invariably mulct a small percentage of the electorate.
       Experience teaches that spending bills are 
     characteristically spendthrift. The reasons are twofold: The 
     benefits are ordinarily concentrated and stimulate strong 
     lobbying efforts by the beneficiaries while the costs are 
     ordinarily diffuse. The logarithmic rocketing of Social 
     Security spending illustrates that political phenomenon. It 
     speaks volumes that in 1988 when Congress enacted a 
     catastrophic health insurance law for Medicare recipients 
     fully funded by risk-based premiums, the elderly immediately 
     screamed for and obtained its repeal because they believed 
     the benefits were not worth the price if they were the 
     payors. In other words, Medicare recipients would oppose the 
     expansion of Medicare spending if they were required to bear 
     the cost. Spiralling government spending also is politically 
     attractive because a hefty portion of the cost through budget 
     deficits can be fastened * * *
               [From the Washington Times, Dec. 20, 1994]

                        Tax Increase Limitations

       If the tax and spend profligacy of Congress seemed confined 
     to some special, urgent, and transitory national need, then 
     the justification for supermajority voting rules would be 
     weak. But the profligacy seems endemic to contemporary 
     politics; the federal budget has invariably been in deficit 
     for a quarter of a century, and has become so habitual to 
     lawmakers that deficits less than $200 billion are 
     oxymoronically styled ``austerity.''
       Federal mandates that require states, localities, or 
     private enterprise to incur substantial costs to provide 
     benefits to constituents or employees should also confront 
     supermajority voting rules. They are more alluring to 
     Congress than the most charming temptress; the mandates gain 
     the federal lawmakers popularity with the beneficiaries while 
     escaping the unpopularity of increased taxes to cover the 
     costs of service.
       The justifications for the presidential vote elaborated by 
     Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 73 equally support the 
     wisdom of Mr. Solomon's proposed rules of legislative self-
     restraint. Hamilton praised the veto as a ``salutary check 
     upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community 
     against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of an 
     impulse unfriendly to the public good . . .'' Acknowledging 
     that the veto might prevent the enactment of good laws, he 
     rejoined: ``[T]his objection will have little weight with 
     those who can properly estimated the mischief of that 
     inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the 
     greatest blemish in the character and genius of our 
     governments. They will consider every institution calculated 
     to restrain the excess of lawmaking . . . as much more likely 
     to do good than harm. . . .''
       Mr. Solomon's proposed supermajority voting rule for tax 
     rate increases is a commendable self-imposed legislative 
     complement to the constitutional veto power designed to block 
     improvident laws. Indeed, the rule should be broadened to 
     reach all bills that would raise taxes or spending. It should 
     be remembered that the Constitution itself is a testament 
     against simple majoritarian rule; it thus smacks of 
     obtuseness to interpret that anti-majortiarian charter as 
     militating against congressional self-restraint in lawmaking.

  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield 
[[Page H65]] 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. 
Waters].
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer the 
amendment I have at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the amendment is not in 
order, and the gentlewoman is not recognized for the purpose of 
offering an amendment at this time. The gentlewoman has been recognized 
to speak on the section that is under debate.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the American people I would like 
them to pay attention, watch closely. I have an amendment to offer now 
but I cannot.
  Republicans ran saying they wanted to open up the congressional 
process. Now they are in charge, but look what has happened. Today we 
have no chance to offer our proposals to change House rules.
  If Republicans believe it is fair to require a three-fifths majority 
to raise taxes, why can I not offer an amendment to require the same 
majority in order to protect Social Security? I am ready to offer it 
today, but I cannot. The Republicans will not allow this debate today.
  If the American people voted for change, I am not sure that is what 
they are getting. This type of reform is not what the people had in 
mind last November, Mr. Speaker.
  I would like to protect seniors, many of whom live in fear of losing 
their only income source. If Republicans want to use the rules to 
further their political ends, we Democrats would like to use that means 
to protect senior citizens.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
urge my colleagues to re-read the U.S. Constitution, the history of the 
Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist Papers. Madison, 
Jefferson, Hamilton and Jay were correct. The right decision was made 
and incorporated into our Constitution. All bills are adopted by simple 
majority of both Houses except for overriding a Presidential veto 
impeachment, and amending the Constitution. This resolution would 
create the requirement of a supermajority to pass legislation not 
specified in the Constitution. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a 
bad idea, it is also unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that on this first day of a Republican 
Speaker in 40 years, a Speaker who is a learned historical and a 
college professor of history, who spoke eloquently of Ben Franklin and 
the checks and balances and the Great Compromise that was necessary to 
allow us to build a Constitution that has lasted for 208 years, it is 
ironic our Speaker is willing to lead Members, including 73 new 
Members, over a constitutional cliff. He knows this greatest of 
constitutions clearly specifies five instances where a supermajority is 
necessary for a decision.
  Except for the ultimate penalty of removing a Member of the branch 
who has been duly elected by the people in his or her district, all of 
those other four represent veto override, treaty ratification, 
impeachment, ratification or rejection of a personnel or action by a 
coequal branch.
  It is ironic for all of the years that the Senate, the other body, 
has required a supermajority to close debate. They never dared to 
suggest that once debate was closed it took more than a simply 
majority, one-half plus one, to make the decision.
  And the ultimate irony, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican majority 
does not need to do this. They have the majority. They can simply vote 
``no'' and accomplish what is there.
  So one can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that section 106 is a 
deliberate effort to attack the Constitution which is so strongly 
lauded here and which we all took an oath to uphold.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, what a long way we have come in dealing 
straight with the American people.
  Less than 17 months ago, this body cast aside basic fairness and 
imposed unprecedented retroactive tax increases. American taxpayers 
were aghast to learn that the tax increases were made effective to a 
date before President Clinton had even assumed office!
  Today, we are restoring credibility with the American people. If this 
proposed rule is adopted, it will be against the rules of the House to 
consider any legislation that contains a retroactive tax increase.
  In the last Congress, I authored House Resolution 2147 to incorporate 
this ``taxpayer-protection'' provision in our House rules. All told, 
165 of our colleagues either cosponsored that resolution or signed 
Discharge Petition No. 11.
  Today, thanks in no small part to Chairman Solomon, we are finally 
getting our chance to adopt this rule change.
  Mr. Speaker, last summer, while not speaking on the wisdom of 
retroactive taxes, the Supreme Court gave Congress a green light to 
raise taxes in this patently unfair manner, putting all tax-paying 
Americans at risk of having their own fiscal houses thrown in disorder.
  It is not only appropriate--but absolutely necessary in light of the 
Court's ruling--that the House take this action to stop retroactive 
taxes.
  I urge all of my colleagues, in a bipartisan way to vote for this 
important reform. The American taxpayers deserve nothing less.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, civilization depends upon civility, and 
civility rests upon an implicit trust that we each abide by a shared 
sense of bounds, of what is within the rules. Each of us must be able 
to expect of the others that we will play by the rules, and not play 
with the rules.
  The proposed rule does violence to this essential aspect of a civil 
society. It is a proposal to go beyond the bounds, to play with the 
rules, instead of by them. And in a most uncivil way, it would abuse 
the discretion given this House by the Constitution to determine the 
rules of its proceedings, by using the rules of the House to subvert 
part of the Constitution: the principle of majority rule that is 
central to the operation of the legislative branch.
  The Republicans say this proposed rules change makes the difference 
between them and the Democrats clear. True. But it is not the 
difference they assert.
  Republicans say this rule change makes it clear that they are opposed 
to tax increases. But this rule has much more to do with the 
Constitution than with taxes.
  What it really makes clear is that for the sake of political 
posturing the Republicans are willing to trample on the Constitution 
which has guided us for 206 years.
  The Constitution is the most fundamental statement of American 
values, the very charter of our democracy. The oath of office we took 
this afternoon was to support and defend the Constitution and to bear 
true faith and allegiance to it. The first responsibility of our job in 
Congress is to honor that charter and remain true to its basic 
principles.
  The gentleman from New York, the new chairman of the Rules Committee, 
has written that the Constitution says the House may write its own 
rules. Yes. And the gentleman has quoted an 1892 Supreme Court 
decision, United States versus Ballin, which says this rulemaking power 
``is absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal'' 
so long as it does ``not ignore constitutional constraints or violate 
fundamental rights.''
  But there's the rub. The rulemaking power of the House does not give 
us a license to steal other substantive provisions of the Constitution, 
especially not one so central as the principle of majority rule.
  [[Page H66]] The gentleman from New York conveniently failed to point 
out that a unanimous Supreme Court in that very same case determined 
that one constitutional constraint that limits the rulemaking power
 is the requirement that a simple majority is sufficient to pass 
regular legislation in Congress. To quote the Court:

       The general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when 
     a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is 
     the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, 
     except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic 
     act under which the body is assembled have prescribed 
     specific limitations. * * * No such limitation is found in 
     the Federal Constitution, and therefore the general law of 
     such bodies obtains.

  The Court expressed the same understanding as recently as 1983, when, 
in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, it stated:

       * * * Art. II, sect. 2, requires that two-thirds of the 
     Senators present concur in the Senate's consent to a treaty, 
     rather than the simple majority required for passage of 
     legislation.

  This principle, while not written into the text of the Constitution, 
was explicitly adopted by the Constitutional Convention. It was 
explicitly defended in The Federalist, the major contemporary 
explanation of the Framer's intent. It was followed by the first 
Congress on its first day, and by every Congress for every day since 
then. And, as I've already
 indicated, this principle has been explicitly found by the Supreme 
Court to be part of our constitutional framework.

  The Framers were very much aware of the difference between a 
supermajority and a simple majority. They met in Philadelphia against 
the historical backdrop of the Articles of Confederation, which 
required a supermajority in Congress for many actions, including the 
raising and spending of money. It was the paralysis of national 
government caused by the supermajority requirement, more than any other 
single cause, that led to the convening of the Constitutional 
Convention.
  In that Philadelphia Convention, the delegates repeatedly considered, 
and rejected, proposals to require a supermajority for action by 
Congress, either on all subjects or on certain subjects. In only five 
instances did they specify something more than a majority vote. These 
are for overriding a veto, ratifying a treaty, removing officials from 
office, expelling a Representative or Senator, and proposing amendments 
to the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution later added two 
others: restoring certain rights of former rebels, and determining the 
existence of a Presidential disability.
  The records of the debates in Philadelphia make it clear that in all 
other instances the writers of the Constitution assumed that a simple 
majority would suffice for passage of legislation. The text of the 
Constitution itself also indicates as much. Why, otherwise, would it 
provide that the Vice President votes in the
 Senate only when ``they be equally divided''? Because, as Hamilton 
explained in Federalist No. 68, it was necessary ``to secure at all 
times the possibility of a definitive resolution of the body.'' 
Certainly the Framers didn't intend the Senate to operate by the 
principles of majority rule, but not the House.

  Indeed, majority rule is such a fundamental part of a democratic 
legislature that the Founders saw no need to state it explicitly--just 
as they didn't bother to spell out that it is the top vote-getter, not 
the second-place finisher, who wins a race for Congress. But each is an 
inherent element of our constitutional framework.
  The reason behind the principle of simple majority rule was stated 
clearly in The Federalist--one of the five books which the new Speaker 
has urged every Member to read. In Federalist No. 58, James Madison 
wrote:

       It has been said that more than a majority ought to have 
     been required for a quorum, and in particular cases, if not 
     in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That 
     some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, 
     cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to 
     some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to 
     hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are 
     outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In 
     all cases where justice or the general good might
      require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be 
     pursued, the fundamental principle of free government 
     would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that 
     would rule; the power would be transferred to the 
     minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to 
     particular cases, an interested minority might take 
     advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable 
     sacrifices to the general weal, or in particular 
     emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences. (Emphasis 
     added.)

  And again, remember that it was a lack of effective national 
government, produced by the minority-rule effects of the supermajority 
provisions of the Articles of Confederation, that led to the convention 
that wrote the Constitution.
  Some argue that a three-fifths requirement to raise taxes would be 
like a two-thirds vote requirement to suspend the rules and pass a 
bill, or the 60-vote requirement to end debate in the Senate. Wrong. 
Those rules address procedural steps. A bill not approved under 
suspension of the rules in the House can be reconsidered and passed by 
a simple majority. After debate is over in the Senate, only a simple 
majority is required to pass any bill.
  So this proposed rule is not like any rule adopted in the 206 years 
in which we have operated under our Constitution. As 13
 distinguished professors of constitutional law recently said in urging 
the House to reject this rule:

       This proposal violates the explicit intentions of the 
     Framers. It is inconsistent with the Constitution's language 
     and structure. It departs sharply from traditional 
     congressional practice. It may generate constitutional 
     litigation that will encourage Supreme Court intervention in 
     an area best left to responsible congressional decision.

  I ask unanimous consent to include after may remarks in the Record 
the law professors' full memorandum.
  So, if this rule is so clearly unconstitutional, why propose it?
  The answer is simple. This rule is a gimmick. It is an act of high 
posturing. And as much as the Republicans may wish to seem opposed to 
tax increases, it is unseemly to do so at the expense of the 
Constitution.
  This rule itself would violate the Constitution, and voting for it 
would violate our oath to uphold the Constitution. Those are, 
obviously, serious matters.
  Beyond that, if we start down this road of making it harder for 
Congress to carry out some of its responsibilities, who knows where it 
will end. Two weeks ago, Rep. Solomon sent out a ``dear colleague'' 
letter enclosing and endorsing a newspaper column
 saying that this supermajority requirement should be broadened to 
apply to all taxes and fees; to any spending increase; and to any bill 
imposing any costs on any type of private business--for example, the 
Clean Air Act.

  So let's be clear that if we vote today for a supermajority for one 
type of legislation, in the future we'll be voting on extending that 
bad idea to other types of legislation, too. And with it, we slide 
measurably toward the empowerment of a minority against which Madison 
warned.
  Of course, the supermajority idea might not stop at a three-fifths 
vote. If the idea here is to make it hard to raise taxes, do we really 
want it to be easier to go to war than to raise taxes? So perhaps we 
should have a rule requiring unanimous consent to declare war.
  Is any of that nonsense really less preposterous--less an assault on 
the basic American values of democracy and majority rule--than the rule 
that is before us today?
  The idea of a three-fifths majority to raise tax rates was first 
proposed in the Republican Contract with America as a part of a 
balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, not as a rules change. 
For those of you who are serious about this idea, that is the 
appropriate and lawful way to do it--through an amendment to the 
Constitution.
  This proposal raises profound constitutional issues. Yet, there have 
been no hearings. And debate here tonight on the floor is limited to 
all of twenty minutes. That is a shamelessly cavalier approach to a 
matter of such importance. It belies its advocates' claims to a 
thoughtful and open deliberative process in this House.
  What is at stake here is the Constitution. Have respect for this 
foundation document of our democracy. Don't return us to the failed 
approach of the Articles of Confederation. Don't subvert the 
Constitution's basic principles. And don't ask us to break the oath of 
office we just took.
  [[Page H67]] Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.

     To: The Honorable Newt Gingrich.
     From: (Institutional affiliations are for purposes of 
       identification only) Bruce Ackerman, Professor of Law and 
       Political Science, Yale University; Akhil Amar, Professor 
       of Law, Yale Law School; Philip Bobbitt, Professor of Law, 
       University of Texas Law School; Richard Fallon, Professor 
       of Law, Harvard Law School; Paul Kahn, Professor of Law, 
       Yale Law School; Philip Kurland, Professor of Law, 
       University of Chicago Law School; Douglas Laycock, 
       Professor of Law, University of Texas Law School; Sanford 
       Levinson, Professor of Law, University of Texas Law School; 
       Frank Michelman, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; 
       Michael Perry, Professor of Law, Northwestern University 
       School of Law; David Strauss, Professor of Law, University 
       of Chicago Law School; Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, 
       University of Chicago Law School; Harry Wellington, Dean, 
       New York Law School.

       We urge you to reconsider your proposal to amend the House 
     Rules to require a three-fifths vote to enact laws that 
     increase income taxes.\1\ This proposal violates the explicit 
     intentions of the Framers. It is inconsistent with the 
     Constitution's language and structure. It departs sharply 
     from traditional congressional practice. It may generate 
     constitutional litigation that will encourage Supreme Court 
     intervention in an area best left to responsible 
     congressional decision.
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Unless the proposal is withdrawn now, it will serve as an 
     unfortunate precedent for the proliferation of supermajority 
     rules on a host of different subjects in the future. Over 
     time, we will see the continuing erosion of our central 
     constitutional commitments to majority rule and deliberative 
     democracy.


                         1. Original Intentions

       The present proposal is unprecedented, but it was 
     anticipated by Madison in a remarkably prescient discussion 
     in the Federalist Papers--a document that you rightly urge 
     your colleagues
      to reread with care. Federalist No. 58 is explicitly 
     directed to complaints about the constitutional design of 
     the House. It concludes by confronting an objection 
     ``against the number made competent for legislative 
     business.'' Madison's description perfectly fits the 
     present proposal:
       It has been said that more than a majority ought to have 
     been required for a quorum, and in particular cases, if not 
     in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision.\2\
       Madison rejects this suggestion, but only after recognizing 
     that it serves certain values--notably it might serve as a 
     ``shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle 
     to hasty and partial measures.''\3\ Nonetheless, he finds 
     these considerations ``outweighed'' by more fundamental ones:
       In all cases where justice or the general good might 
     require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be 
     pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would 
     be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would 
     rule; the power would be transferred to the minority. Were 
     the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an 
     interested minority might take advantage of it to screen 
     themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or 
     in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable 
     indulgences.\4\
       Madison's audience understood the backdrop of these 
     remarks. The Articles of Confederation required Congressional 
     supermajorities for specially important subjects, including 
     the raising and spending of money.\5\ But the Philadelphia 
     Convention decisively rejected such a system, repeatedly 
     voting down key proposals that imposed supermajorities in 
     legislative fields of special sensitivity.\6\ In Federalist 
     No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly defended this decision 
     to break with the supermajority system of the Articles, 
     insisting that ordinary legislation should not ``give a 
     minority a negative upon the majority.''\7\
       The Founders rejection of selective supermajority rule for 
     specially sensitive legislation was neither casual nor 
     peripheral to their larger design. Instead, it was based on 
     practical experience and careful consideration of the 
     arguments on both sides. Nothing in the past two centuries of 
     our history authorizes a simple majority of the House to take 
     unilateral action and restrike the constitutional balance.


                  2. Constitutional Text and Structure

       Of course, there are times when the Constitution weighs the 
     balance differently. On seven different occasions, it 
     stipulates a supermajority requirement.\8\ But it never makes 
     three-fifths, rather than two-thirds, a numerical hurdle of 
     special significance. More fundamentally, it never places any 
     special obstacles on the enactment of ordinary legislation 
     signed by the President.\9\ As the Chadha case teaches, this 
     carefully considered lawmaking system can only be changed by 
     constitutional amendment.\10\
       If the present proposal were legitimate, it would set a 
     precedent for endless proliferation of supermajority 
     requirements: If income tax increases can be subject to a 
     special rule, why not national defense or civil rights? Since 
     a 60 percent rule has no special place in the constitutional 
     text, why not 55 or 73 percent? Indeed, the present proposal 
     already suggests how easily this logic may be extended. It 
     not only contains a three-fifths rule for income tax 
     increases, but imposes a kind of unanimity rule for the 
     special category of ``retroactive'' taxes--already propelling 
     us down the path to proliferation.
       It is true that the constitution gives each house the right 
     ``to determine the rules of its
      proceedings.'' This sensible housekeeping provision, 
     however, does not authorize the House to violate 
     fundamental principles of constitutional democracy. It 
     simply authorizes it to organize itself for informed and 
     efficient debate and decision.
       Indeed, we have no objection to supermajority rules so long 
     as they fit comfortably within this rationale. Consider, for 
     example, the House rule that requires a two-thirds vote to 
     suspend the rules for the expeditious consideration of 
     legislation. This supermajority requirement transparently 
     serves the interest of the efficient organization of 
     decisionmaking. If it were too easy to suspend House rules, 
     there would be undue disruption of the normal system of 
     deliberation and decision; but if it were impossible, the 
     House would be incapable of responding to emergencies. Hence, 
     a two-thirds rule is a perfectly appropriate way to exercise 
     the House's power ``to determine the rules of its 
     proceedings.''
       But the present proposal cannot be justified as a general 
     procedure aiming to induce deliberative decisionmaking. It is 
     simply based upon a substantive and selective judgment that 
     income tax increases--and only these increases--are unwise 
     and should not be encouraged. Such opinions are entirely 
     defensible, but they do not fall within the limited 
     constitutional authority granted each house over its 
     ``proceedings.''
       There is much more than language at stake. House rules are 
     enacted on the first day of the session. Hence substantive 
     judgments made in the rules cannot be the result of serious 
     deliberation by the Members. House rules are made 
     unilaterally without consultation with the Senate. Hence 
     substantive judgments cannot be reached after the complex 
     bicameral process contemplated by Article I. House rules are 
     made by a bare majority. Hence the enactment of supermajority 
     rules provides a mechanism to transform a narrow majority 
     into a supermajority at a time when the process of 
     substantive deliberation has not yet seriously begun. The 
     introduction of substantive policies into procedural rules, 
     then, undermines the system of deliberative democracy 
     established at the Founding.
       Defenders of the supermajority rule have minimized its 
     threat to constitutional values by suggesting ``that the same 
     House majority that votes to impose a three-fifths rule could 
     as easily vote to rescind that rule if it truly wanted to 
     raise taxes.''\11\ But this claim is simply false. Once the 
     sixty-percent provision is on the books, its operation would 
     apply to tax legislation unless the House agreed to suspend 
     its rules. But we have seen that this can only occur after a 
     two-thirds vote. House traditions even given the Speaker 
     unilateral authority to refuse to recognize a motion to 
     suspend the rules even if two-thirds wished to allow the 
     majority to have its say.\12\
       Indeed, even if the House wished to reconsider its opening 
     day decision to impose a three-fifths rule, it would have 
     great difficulty doing so. Such an effort normally requires 
     the prior approval of the House Rules Committee, whose 
     composition does not mirror the House as a whole. The only 
     remaining method for reconsideration will be the notoriously 
     difficult procedure by which 218 members may finally force 
     the Rules Committee to ``discharge'' a measure that it has
      bottled up.\13\ While 218 is an absolute majority of the 
     whole House, requiring such a large number is inconsistent 
     with Madison's insistence that ``a majority of a quorum'' 
     should suffice for ordinary legislation. By the time this 
     mechanism could be employed, moreover, the chance to vote 
     on pending tax measures may have long since passed.
       There is no escape, then, from the conclusion that the 
     proposed rule strikes at the heart of the system of 
     deliberative democracy established by the Constitution.


                       3. Congressional Practice

       The sixty-percent proposal seems to be based on an analogy 
     with the Senate's practice on cloture. Whatever the 
     constitutional merits of the filibuster rule, it does not 
     provide a sound precedent. By making it hard to stop 
     filibusters, the cloture rule provides for a more fully 
     informed discussion, and falls within the rationale of the 
     Constitution's grant of rule-making power to both Houses. In 
     contrast to this general and procedural norm, the House 
     proposal is selective and substantive and is simply beyond 
     the scope of its rule-making authority.
       It is quite true that, since 1985, Congress has passed new 
     rules requiring a three-fifths majority in the Senate as part 
     of the budget reconciliation process.\14\ While these 
     provisions are vulnerable to our constitutional objection, 
     they are such recent innovations that they can hardly count 
     as a ``tradition'' which demands constitutional respect.


                        4. Supreme Court Review

       We believe that the constitutional violation is 
     sufficiently plain and fundamental to warrant action by the 
     Supreme Court. As the Court cautioned in United States v. 
     Ballin, House rules may not ``ignore constitutional 
     restraints or violate fundamental rights.''\15\ The Court 
     went on to elaborate principles of constitutional 
     interpretation of decisive significance in the present case:
       [[Page H68]] [T]he general rule of all parliamentary bodies 
     is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of 
     the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for 
     all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the 
     organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed 
     specific limitations.\16\
       We emphasize, however, that it would be far better to 
     rethink the issue at this stage than invite litigation. Not 
     only would litigation lead to a protracted period of 
     uncertainty, but it would destroy a valuable House tradition 
     of constitutional self-restraint in the exercise of its rule-
     making powers which has served the country well for two 
     centuries. It would be far better to redeem this tradition 
     now without the need of an unnecessary confrontation with the 
     Court.
       Indeed, both the Senate and President would also find 
     themselves drawn into the controversy. Both of these branches 
     would be required to define their own constitutional 
     responsibilities if a tax measure gained the support of a 
     House majority that fell short of three-fifths. The resulting 
     confusion would undermine fundamental commitments to the rule 
     of law, and would predictably draw the Supreme Court into the 
     affair.
       Under applicable precedent, Representatives have standing 
     to challenge basic lawmaking practices which dilute the 
     voting power that the Constitution grants to them and their 
     constituents.\17\ Other cases establish that the Supreme 
     Court will intervene on the merits to protect the integrity 
     of the deliberative and democratic process established by the 
     Constitution.\18\
       But the better part of wisdom is to avoid confrontation and 
     return to the foundations of deliberative democracy laid down 
     by Madison in the Federalist Papers.
                               footnotes

     \1\Sec. 106. Limitation on Tax Increases: (a) No bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment or conference report carrying an income 
     tax rate increase could be considered as passed or agreed to 
     unless so determined by a vote of at least three-fifths of 
     the House. No measure or amendment could be considered that 
     contains a retroactive income tax rate increase.
     See p. 3 for our analysis of the second sentence of this 
     proposal.
     \2\Federalist No. 58, p. 396 (Ed. Jacob E. Cooke, Wesleyan 
     University Press: 1961) (emphasis supplied).
     \3\Id.
     \4\Ibid., p. 397.
     \5\Articles of Confederation, art. 9, para. 6 (1781).
     \6\These proposals sought to impose a two-thirds rule on 
     legislation dealing with commerce and navigation--fields 
     which were understood to be sensitive precisely because they 
     characteristically involved taxation. 5 Johnathan Elliot, 
     Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 489-92, 
     552 (Philadelphia: 1941).
     \7\Federalist No. 22, supra n. 2, at 140. Like Madison, 
     Hamilton counseled that ``much ill may be produced by the 
     power of hindering that which is necessary from being done, 
     and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in 
     which they appended to stand at a particular period.'' Id. at 
     141.
     \8\The original Constitution identifies five contexts for 
     supermajority rule--when overriding Presidential vetoes, 
     ratifying treaties, proposing constitutional amendments, 
     convicting on impeachments, and expelling members from the 
     House or Senate. Two more are added by the Fourteenth 
     Amendment (two-thirds of both Houses required to remove 
     disability of rebellious officeholders) and the Twenty-fifth 
     Amendment (two-thirds of both Houses required to establish 
     Presidential disability to discharge office). In addition, 
     the Twelfth Amendment requires an absolute majority of the 
     relevant chamber in cases where no candidate for President or 
     Vice-President has won a majority in the Electoral College.
     \9\The textual commitment to majority rule is also expressed 
     by the grant of a vote to the Vice-President in those cases 
     in which the Senators are ``equally divided.'' U.S. 
     Constitution, art. 1, sec. 3.
     \10\I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
     \11\Letter of Roger Pilon to the Editor of the New York 
     Times, December 16, 1994, p. 38, col. 8.
     \12\See Charles Tiefer, Congressional Practice and Procedure: 
     A Reference, Research and Legislative Guide 299 (Greenwood 
     Press, 1989).
     \13\Id. at 314-26.
     \14\See Kate Stith, Rewriting the Fiscal Constitution: The 
     Case of Gramm--Rudman-Hollings, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 593, 666 
     (1988). These rules were expanded in scope in P.L. 101-508, 
     sec. 13208, 104 Stat 1388-619 (1990). As in previous cases, 
     Congress made it clear that such statutory creation of 
     supermajority rules involved ``an exercise of the rule-making 
     power of the Senate.'' See sec 13305, 104 Stat 1388-627 
     (1990). See also, P.L. 103-66, sec. 14004, 107 Stat. 685 
     (1993).
     \15\United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1891).
     \16\Id. at 6.
     \17\See Michel v. Anderson, 14 F3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 
     affirming 817 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993). See also, Kennedy 
     v. Sampson, 511 F2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Barnes v. Kline, 
     759 F2d 21, 25-30 (D.C. Cir. 1985), vacated as moot sub nom 
     Burke v. Barnes, 107 S. Ct. 734 (1987) (reaffirming Kennedy 
     analysis of standing); Laurence Tribe, American 
     Constitutional Law 152-54 (2d ed. 1988); Bator et al., Hart & 
     Wechsler's Federal Courts and the Federal System 157 n. 7 (3d 
     ed. 1988).
     \18\See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); Powell v. 
     McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate].
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, mugging a senior citizen and stealing their 
money will land you in jail. Why then is it so easy for Congress to 
raise taxes and spend more money out of the pockets of hard-working 
American people?
  Raising taxes, sending your money to Washington, DC, should not be 
simple.
  The newly elected Congress was given a message by the American people 
that the days of tax and of spend are over.
  I am in favor of the proposal of requiring a 60-percent majority in 
order to raise taxes so that the taxing ways of Congress are gone 
forever.
  This will restore the fiscal discipline by which every American 
family must live, spend less, save more, and balance your budget.
  The simple solutions of the past have cost Americans millions and 
cost the taxpayers thousands of jobs. People work hard for their money, 
and it should be hard for Congress to take that from them.
  I urge my colleagues to require a 60-percent vote to approve all tax 
increases.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
proposal.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
unconstitutional measure.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise in opposition to the requirement 
for a super-majority of three-fifths of the House of Representatives to 
increase income taxes.
  This measure may sound good to our constituents. Many Americans are 
upset at all of their taxes: Federal income taxes, State income taxes, 
sales taxes, and property taxes. I share their sentiments--it is 
imperative that we provide middle-class Americans with meaningful tax 
relief.
  So why am I voting against this supposed reform? Quite simply because 
it threatens the very foundations of our democratic society and 
violates the American tradition of majority rule.
  The Founding Fathers explicitly rejected the notion of 
supermajorities at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. As 
Alexander Hamilton said, we should not ``give the minority a negative 
on the majority.''
  James Madison was even more specific. With a supermajority, he said, 
``the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It 
would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power transferred 
to the minority.''
  Let us not try to solve one problem by creating worse ones. Let us 
all work together to provide middle-class taxpayers with real and 
meaningful tax cuts. But let us not attack the very foundation of our 
free society--the American Constitution. It has served us well for over 
200 years--let's keep it.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
unconstitutional amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this section. This 
rule would require a three-fifths majority to pass any legislation 
raising income tax rates. This rule flies in the face of the 
Constitution. It will only strengthen the ability of special interest 
lobbies to paralyze this Nation.
  Let us be clear that this rule would only govern taxes on earned 
income. Income taxes are progressive taxes. Republicans do not propose 
a three-fifths requirement to change the tax rate for capital gains. 
Republicans do not propose a three-fifths majority to create tax 
shelters for tax avoiders. Republicans do not propose a three-fifths 
requirement to increase deficit spending or raise the national debt.
  This is one more gimmick. Its a gimmick that will spawn more 
gimmicks. Its a gimmick that will undermine the constitutional 
provisions for majority rule in the House of Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues to respect the pledge they made to uphold the 
Constitution. Don't give in to gimmicks.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  [[Page H69]] (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this measure.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today our new Speaker spoke of the majesty of 
this House. He spoke of 208 years of history. He spoke of the light of 
the world, this democracy, America.
  It is our Constitution that gives this democracy its grace and its 
reverberation around the world.
  Whether you agree or disagree, no one disagrees that this issue is of 
constitutional magnitude. My freshmen friends who want open meetings 
and the elimination of ghost voting do not come to this House and say 
to the American public that we will give 10 minutes per side of an 
issue of constitutional magnitude. If we retain the majority again and 
require a 3/5ths vote to repeal any action taken by the previous 
Congress, would any of you stand still for such an act? I think not.
  Reject this provision.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, requiring a 3/5ths vote makes tax increases a last 
resort.
  In Washington State just a year ago the people of the State passed an 
initiative to do just this. And do you know what happened? Right now, 
instead of considering tax increase, they are actually looking at 
places to control the budget and looking at the base of the budget 
where we have never looked before.
  If we are going to get to control spending and control the deficit, 
we absolutely have to control the ability to raise taxes first.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this proposal.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs].
  Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, after everything is said that can be said, this proposal 
would make it more, would make it easier to run up the bills than to 
pay them, thus beckoning one of the weakest aspects of human nature.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman of the House, the reason 
we are here tonight on this amendment is because we forced through this 
House a retroactive tax increase last year. We would not probably be 
having this amendment today if you had not trampled on the rights of 
the taxpayers of America. This is a good bill, this is a good 
amendment. We need this to protect American taxpayers.
  Support this amendment.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment to 
require a three-fifths vote majority to increase taxes.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this tax 
limitation provision.
  The very clear message of the last election was that the American 
people want a smaller and less expensive government. There is no better 
way to start this process than by passing this provision.
  The average American today pays almost half of his or her income in 
taxes, counting taxes of all types--Federal, State, and local. This is 
not only enough, it is too much.
  If we really want to help the children and families of this country, 
the best way we can do that is to greatly downsize the government and 
decrease its cost. Only in this way can we allow the individuals and 
families of this Nation to spend more of their own money on the things 
that they need the most.
  I believe very strongly that the American people can do a much better 
job of spending their money than the bureaucrats in Washington who 
currently spend it for them.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in order to 
close.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that many of the proponents of this 
proposal have not even read it, for if they had, they would discover to 
their chagrin that it only limits the Congress in enacting income tax 
rate increases, not tax increases. You know what that will do: Merely 
transfer the tax increases over to other kind of taxes where the people 
that are worried about the income tax rates will be protected.
  But this is unconstitutional. There is no way that a simple majority 
of this House can adopt a rule here tonight and bind the rest of the 
House to require a 60 percent vote on any other thing.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rules 
change to have three-fifths to change the tax rate for an increase or a 
decrease in income taxes, and I do this because there is no precedent 
in Congress requiring a super-majority for final action on any measure 
except those specifically cited in the Constitution, such as overriding 
a veto or impeachment.
  We have seen what a super-majority has done in the Senate by 
requiring 60 votes to end debate. It results in gridlock. Nothing 
happens. Nothing gets done.
  I cite James Madison as he discussed the rationale for not raising 
this threshold, and he said, ``The fundamental principles of free 
government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that 
would control, power would be transferred to the minority.''
  The new majority should not override the wisdom of our forefathers. 
That is not a good rules change.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield only 5 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn, and I ask for a recorded vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. For purpose of debate only.
  Mr. OWENS. I move we adjourn.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Regular order. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. WALKER. Is the motion in writing?
  Mr. VOLKMER. He recognized him.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman is not yet 
recognized. Is the gentleman's motion in writing?
  Mr. OWENS. A motion to adjourn does not have to be in writing.
  I move that we adjourn and ask for a recorded vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Since a Member has properly demanded that 
the notices be in writing, is the gentleman's motion in writing?
  Mr. OWENS. In writing? It does not have to be in writing.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's 5 seconds are up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman from Georgia yield to a 
Member for the purpose of debate only?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
  [[Page H70]] Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I beseech you, think what you 
are doing today. It may be the most important vote of your 
congressional career.
  208 years ago this same fundamental debate took place. You have the 
opportunity to side with James Madison, with Alexander Hamilton, and 
continue the principles of the Constitution, or you have the 
opportunity, by your vote today, to side with those who wanted to 
retain the Articles of Confederation.
  This amendment does violence to the principles established by our 
forefathers and by each and every one of our descendants in this House 
of Representatives. It is inherently unfair; it is inherently 
undemocratic; it is inherently unconstitutional.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Fox] have only one remaining speaker?
  Mr. FOX. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure we are 
last.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves the 
balance of his time.
  Mr. FOX. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, paraphrasing from a newspaper editorial:

       Not content with their party's 15-vote majority in the 
     House of Representatives, the Republicans want to improve 
     their odds by changing the rules of the game.
       The Republicans intend to offer a bill that would require a 
     3/5s majority in the House to approve any bill increasing 
     some taxes. So much for the careful deliberations of the 
     Constitution's framers. They required a supermajority only 
     for the most momentous decisions--approving treaties, 
     impeaching Presidents, and expelling Members of Congress. 
     Republicans think they got it wrong. They would add their own 
     policy preference to that select list.
       If they succeed, the tactic will probably be used again. 
     Republicans could force a 3/5s vote to cut defense spending. 
     If Democrats regain control, they could require a 3/5s vote 
     to cut poverty programs. So much for majority rule. So much 
     for simple fairness.
       The Republican's boldness has a darker side--their 
     recklessness. With this proposal, they defy the intent of the 
     framers of the Constitution and upset a carefully-balanced 
     system that has worked well for two centuries.

  Mr. Speaker, the article in its entirety is as follows:

                Running roughshod Over the Constitution

       Not content with his party's 15-vote majority in the House 
     of Representatives, Newt Gingrich wants to improve his odds 
     by changing the rules of the game.
       The Speaker-to-be intends to offer a bill that would 
     require a three-fifths majority in the House to approve any 
     bill increasing taxes.
       So much for the careful deliberations of the Constitution's 
     framers. They required a supermajority only for the most 
     momentous decisions--approving treaties, impeaching 
     presidents, and expelling members of Congress, for example, 
     Mr. Gingrich apparently thinks they got it wrong. He would 
     add his own policy preference to that select list.
       If he succeeds, the tactic will probably be used again. 
     Republicans could force a three-fifths vote to cut defense 
     spending, for example. If Democrats regain control, they 
     could require a three-fifths vote to cut poverty programs. So 
     much for majority rule. So much for simple fairness.
       Mr. Gingrich's boldness has a darker side--recklessness. 
     With this proposal, he defies the intent of the framers of 
     the Constitution, and upsets a carefully-balanced system that 
     has worked well for two centuries.
       If Mr. Gingrich believes tax hikes deserve such exalted 
     status, he should proceed in accord with the Constitution and 
     offer a constitutional amendment. That would require approval 
     by two-thirds of each house in Congress, and three-fourths of 
     the states--unless tow-thirds of the states convene a 
     constitutional convention. Apparently, Mr. Gingrich does not 
     want to risk the scrutiny that the Founding Fathers 
     prescribed for such momentous change.
       Other changes offered by Mr. Gingrich make sense. At his 
     behest, the incoming Republican majority has voted to reduce 
     the number of committees in the House, and cut staff. He 
     would make each committee's jurisdiction more clear. The 
     change is designed to prevent several committees from 
     latching onto a single issue, as happened with health 
     legislation earlier this year.
       Mr. Gingrich was right to end funding for the special 
     caucuses, including the Black Congressional Caucus and the 
     Caucus for Women's Issues. He has been accused of cutting 
     these funds to undercut his political opposition, and that 
     may be the case. Nevertheless, there is merit to his case.
       The caucuses are special-interest groups, and taxpayers 
     shouldn't have to support them. The 28 caucuses that get 
     taxpayer money have spent $35 million in the last decade, and 
     critics say $7 million of that hasn't been accounted for. One 
     caucus, the New York State congressional delegation, bought a 
     Steuben glass eagle and 11 crystal apples as gifts for a 
     retiring congressman and his staff.
       After losing this flight, the chairman of the black caucus, 
     Kweisi Mfume, D-Md. pledged that his caucus will raise 
     private money to continue its work. That's the idea.

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, our forefathers had such a deep respect for 
major rule that they determined that majority rule was insufficient to 
send our troops to war. They knew how difficult it would be to resist 
politically popular pressures, but they were insistent that there not 
be minority rule determining those issues that took the most political 
courage.
  Mr. Speaker, this pressure does not belong among these internal rules 
changes. It is constitutionally illegal, and it is fiscally 
irresponsible, and, if we are ever going to address a $4 trillion debt, 
we have to make it within the reach of this body and the American 
people to do so.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I rise to say that I am 
not here to raise taxes. I am here to lower taxes. But what is the 
reason for a majority, a supermajority, when simply a majority can say 
to the American people, we don't want taxes. I think that we are going 
in an unconstitutional way if we start talking about making a 
superminority. It is important to be able to say we do not want to 
raise taxes and we vote in a simple majority to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been only three actions in the Constitution 
that need a two-thirds vote. Why are we not trying to change, and to 
argue that we want to create this superminority?
  I say to my colleagues, vote for lower taxes. You don't need a 
supermajority. Support the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to vote for an increase in taxes, and if 
such an item were presented at this time, I would vote ``no.'' There 
are only five situations where current rules require more than a simple 
majority of Members voting for the House to act. A two-thirds 
supermajority is required in two instances--passage of a bill under 
suspension of the rules, and consideration of a rule recommended by the 
Rules Committee on the same day it was reported. Additionally, the 
Constitution of the United States requires a two-thirds vote for House 
action in three situations--overriding the President's veto, submitting 
a constitutional amendment to the states for consideration, and 
expelling a Member from the House. All other action by the House is 
accomplished by a majority vote of Members present and voting.
  This measure will simply tie the hands of the House and actually 
prevent its Members from doing the business of the American people. The 
Constitution does not demand a supermajority when dealing with tax 
issues. This legislation would serve only to help certain, singled out 
groups, while other groups would be subject to the tax burdens that 
could be randomly set by this House.
  We can already vote ``no'' on tax increases with a simple majority 
vote. Why should we implement a restriction which the Constitution does 
not require, and, at the same time, strangle this institution so that 
its Members cannot properly serve the interests of the people who 
elected them?
  A simple majority will get you what you want. I will vote ``no'' on 
this item.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for our final speech.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this country was founded on the 
principle of no taxation without representation. Today many Americans 
believe that principle has been violated and that their elected 
Representatives in Washington have taxed them so that they can spend 
money on the special big-spending interests in Washington, DC. To 
correct this sad situation the new Republican majority has now 
introduced section 106 of the rule change 
[[Page H71]] package. Section 106 would require a three-fifths vote to 
increase income taxes. It also contains an absolute prohibition against 
retroactive tax increases.
  The opponents of this provision have been whining and wailing all 
evening about the constitutionality of this provision. The 
constitutional argument simply will not stand. In 1971, Mr. Speaker, in 
the Supreme Court case of Gordon versus Lance the Supreme Court blessed 
the constitutionality of supermajority restraints on the tax and 
spending propensities of government. I might also point out that 
numerous States have a supermajority requirement for tax increases in 
their State constitutions, including the State of Arkansas, the home 
State of our President, which requires a three-fourths vote. I might 
also point out that we plan, on January 19, to introduce a 
constitutional balanced-budget amendment that contains a 60 percent 
supermajority to increase taxes.
  The real question that we should be asking this evening is whether 
supermajority votes to raise income taxes really work. To answer that 
question let us look to the States that require supermajorities for 
such tax increases. An analysis of State spending between 1980 and 1987 
shows that in States with supermajority requirements for tax increases 
their tax burden has gone down an average of 2 percent while States 
that do not have a supermajority tax rate requirement, their tax burden 
has gone up an average of 2 percent. That is a difference of 4 percent. 
When we look at State spending, in States with the supermajority 
requirement State spending has gone up 2 percent, but in States that do 
not have the supermajority requirement for income increases, their 
spending has increased 8.5 percent, or a net difference of 6\1/2\ 
percent. I say to my colleagues, ``If you take these differentials and 
apply them to the current Federal budget, you would see that, if we had 
a supermajority requirement for an income tax increase in effect today, 
our income taxes would be approximately $56 billion less, and our 
Federal spending would be approximately $105 billion less.''
  Put simply, supermajority requirements for income tax increases do 
work.
  I have also asked my staff to go back and look at the major votes we 
have had in the last three decades on tax increases in the House of 
Representatives. There were 16 such votes. Seven of those were passed 
with a supermajority, seven were passed with less than a supermajority, 
and two were passed by voice vote. Interestingly enough, since the 
advent of C-SPAN television coverage in the early 1980's, only one tax 
increase has passed by more than the 60 percent supermajority. 
Amazingly, if we had had a three-fifths vote requirement for a tax 
increase in effect in the 1980's, we would have saved $666 billion in 
new taxes.
  I submit for the Record the charts and data to support this 
conclusion, and I ask for a yes vote. Let us start listening as much to 
the taxpayers of America as we do to the special interests of America 
and pass this amendment.
        History of Tax Increases--Major Tax Increases Since 1960

       Since 1981:
       1 Bill passed with 60 percent supermajority in each House. 
     4 Bills passed without 60 percent supermajority in each 
     House.
       Those 4 bills added $666 billion in taxes.
       Tax Rate Extension Act of 1960--No.
       House 223-174, No, (56%).
       Senate 61-32, Yes, (66%).
       Tax Rate Extension Act of 1961--Yes.
       House 295-88, Yes, (77%).
       Senate voice.
       House Voice.
       Tax Rate Extension Act of 1962--Yes.
       House Voice.
       Senate voice.
       Tax Rate Extension Act of 1963--Yes.
       House 283-91, Yes, (76%).
       Senate voice.
       Excise Tax Rate Extension Act of 1964--Yes.
       House voice.
       Senate voice.
       Interest Equalization Tax Act of 1964--Yes.
       House 238-142, Yes, (63%).
       Senate 45-28, No, (62%).
       Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1965--Yes.
       House 274-97, Yes, (74%).
       Senate voice.
       Tax Adjustment Act of 1966--Yes.
       House 288-102, Yes, (74%).
       Senate 72-5, Yes, (94%).
       Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1967--Yes.
       House 224-83, Yes, (73%).
       Senate voice.
       Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968--Yes.
       House 268-150, Yes, (64%).
       Senate 64-16, Yes, (80%).
       Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980--Yes.
       House 302-107, Yes, (74%).
       Senate 66-31, Yes, (68%).
       Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982--No: $214 
     billion.
       House 226-207, No, (52%).
       Senate 52-47, No, (52%).
       Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987--No: $40 billion.
       House 237-181, No, (57%).
       Senate 61-28, Yes, (62%).
       Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989--Yes: $25 
     billion.
       House 272-128, Yes, (68%).
       Senate 87-7, Yes, (93%).
       Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990--No: $137 
     billion.
       House 228-200, No, (53%).
       Senate 54-45, No, (55%).
       Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993--No: $275 
     billion.
       House 218-216, No, (50.2%).
       Senate 51-49, No, (51%).


     THE MOMENTUM FOR SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX INCREASES

       9 states require supermajority votes for tax increases 
     (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota).
       1971--Florida requires 3/5 vote to changes in corporate 
     income tax.
       1978--California requires 2/3 vote for tax increases.
       1978--South Dakota 2/3 vote for increasing tax rate or 
     base.
       1980--Delaware requires 3/5 vote for tax increases.
       1992--Okahoma requires 3/4 vote or majority of voters to 
     increase state revenue.
       1992--Arizona requires 2/3 vote to increase state revenues.
     WHY TAX-LIMITATION AND A SUPER- MAJORITY FOR TAX 
     INCREASES?
       Taxes are already too high, slowing economic growth and 
     robbing taxpayers. Spending is also too high. Every federal 
     program has waste and overspending.
       Making it politically difficult to raise taxes will deny 
     free-spending legislators the ``easy'' approach to balancing 
     budgets--raising taxes.
       The three-fifths supermajority requirement will force 
     Congress to look hard at spending and will force tax-raisers 
     to find 261 Members willing to raise taxes rather than cut 
     spending.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). All time for debate on section 
106 has expired.
  The question is on section 106 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279, 
nays 152, not voting 3, as follows:
                              [Roll No 11]

                               YEAS--279

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     [[Page H72]] Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bateman
     Yates
       

                              {time}  2204

  Mr. PASTOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So Section 106 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). Section 107 of the 
resolution is now debatable for 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] will be recognized for 10 
minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a new Member, I am amazed that the House of 
Representatives has been taking money from the taxpayers to run 
Congress without keeping track of where that money goes. A 
comprehensive audit of this institution is long overdue.
  The days of treating the American taxpayer's money with an arrogant 
disregard for accountability must end now. Congress must understand 
that the money spent here is not ours--it is the peoples money--and 
they are entitled to know where every penny goes.
  Throughout my campaign, people told me they are fed up with scandals 
in Congress--the House bank scandal--the House Post Office scandal--the 
House restaurant.
  This reform, Mr. Speaker, instructs the House inspector general to 
use independent auditing firms to conduct a full scale audit of all the 
House's functions. This reform will restore openness and accountability 
to the way Congress does business. We must eliminate any ``waste, 
fraud, and abuse'' from this body as is called for in the contract with 
America.
  We want this audit to be as expansive as possible--to account for 
every asset--every dollar spent by this institution.
  My new colleagues and I were sent to Congress to reform the way the 
Federal Government works. But to do this, we must first clean up the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to help restore America's faith 
and trust in Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this act of genuine congressional reform.
                              {time}  2210

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this proposal, and I do 
so not because I feel there will be any great revelations that might 
satisfy those who would like to find problems here in the institution, 
but I think audits have been, should be, and will be in the future 
absolutely essential to restoring public trust in an institution that 
has come under I think consistent unfair criticism over a long period 
of time.
  I am particularly concerned, though, that as we manage these audits, 
and I might say that the language in the document we are dealing with 
tonight is rather imprecise, we have to ask ourselves the question 
about how we will function in this new Republican majority.
  For a number of years, Republicans have been adamant about bringing 
about bipartisanship in the manner in which we run this institution. 
The rules package Republicans offered in the last Congress called for a 
nonpartisan administration committee, equally numbered with Members of 
both parties, quite apart from whatever party was in the majority here. 
They even asked for that complete bipartisanship with equal 
representation on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  We asked to have in place management of the House that was totally 
nonpartisan. Whether it was the Post Office, whether it was the 
Director of Non-Legislative Services, the entire thrust in a bipartisan 
sense was to bring about a change in the way we had functioned here, 
and Democrats and Republicans I think in mutual pride and satisfaction 
found a way to move in that direction.
  But what we have encountered recently is a complete rejection of 
everything Republicans fought for to bring about change in the way this 
institution functioned, and, that is, to select individuals based on 
their partisan background to manage the institution only at the whim, 
the beck and call of one individual who has been elected Speaker.
  My belief is when Republicans asked that we have a two-thirds vote of 
the House to select a financial officer of this institution, they were 
going on record for something that had legs, that would last through 
the years, that was a position that they took firmly and hoped to have 
govern the institution when and if they at some point in the future 
took control. I am disappointed to say the least that we focus now on 
audits and not on the management of how those audits would be 
functioning, exactly who would manage them, and whether or not they 
would truly be done in the bipartisan spirit which was the hallmark of 
the Republican arguments in recent years on occasions such as this when 
they brought their rules package to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to audits. What I am opposed to is 
partisan management of an institution that had come a long way into a 
different era, one that was to be bipartisan in every sense. I regret 
that reversion.

[[Page H73]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California deserves an 
answer and he will get one.
  Under H. Res. 429 which was supported bipartisanly, we created the 
Oversight Subcommittee. We also created an Inspector General. The very 
first time the Oversight Subcommittee had to support the new chief 
executive officer, the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial 
Services, the Democrats refused. There was a 2-2 tie. It did not work. 
The Inspector General needed assistance. The Democrats would not 
provide him with any. The Democrats only allowed 3 total employees to 
the Inspector General. We are now honoring the Inspector General's 
request of 18 employees to carry out the audits.
  In a letter dated December 21, 1994, the Office of Inspector General 
in responding to a letter about going forward with these audits said 
this:
  ``Therefore, the Office of Inspector General is very willing to 
accept this responsibility (i.e. the audits) and will perform the 
associated tasks in a totally professional and nonpartisan manner.''
  What we are asking for, and getting, is professional management of 
the House. What the American people are getting is transparency of that 
management. The old system would not open up. The new system will.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 1994.
                                                Mr. John Lainhart,


                                            Inspector General,

                                         House of Representatives,
     H2-485,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Lainhart: Republicans have called for the 
     selection of a major, independent accounting firm to perform 
     comprehensive audits of the Congress. We believe that such 
     audits are need both to ensure full accountability to the 
     U.S. taxpayer and to provide the factual information 
     necessary to build an efficient, cost-effective 
     administrative structure.
       We envision a series of audits, to begin as soon as 
     possible, that will result in a final, consolidated picture 
     of the financial and operational status of the Congress. We 
     are contacting you at this time to request that your office 
     assume this responsibility. The audits, and the process under 
     which they are conducted, must be free from interference and 
     partisan influence. The office of the Inspector General was 
     created in 1992 for the specific purpose of nonpartisan 
     review and evaluation of House operations, and is the logical 
     office to carry out this charge.
       By copy of this letter to Richard Gephardt, we are asking 
     for his full cooperation in assisting you in this task, which 
     we expect will include the need for additional staffing for 
     your office and funding for the audit contract. It is our 
     intention that the comprehensive audits conducted under this 
     process will complement the audit plan which you have 
     recommended to bipartisan leadership, in fact expediting the 
     overall review of House operations which you have already 
     presented.
       Research has already been performed regarding the steps 
     necessary to let a contract for these audits, and a 
     preliminary review of the entities which we envision will be 
     involved. The first task is an audit plan for House entities, 
     shortly followed, based on agreement with the Senate, by 
     audit plans for joint Senate-House entities. We would be glad 
     to provide you with the background information we have 
     collected; however, we offer this only as a suggestion to 
     help speed the process. No such comprehensive review of House 
     operations has been undertaken before, and we recognize that 
     the challenges inherent in completing such a review now are 
     enormous.
       We have confidence in your professional ability to carry 
     out this task, and hope that your office is willing to accept 
     this responsibility. Please contact Stacy Carlson, at the 
     Committee on House Oversight (Committee on House 
     Administration), if you need additional information. We look 
     forward to your response to this request.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Nussle.
     Bill Thomas.
                                                                    ____

                                      Office of Inspector General,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 21, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Thomas: Thank you for your letter of 
     December 12, 1994, cosigned by Congressman Jim Nussle, 
     requesting the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to assume 
     responsibility for managing the comprehensive audits of the 
     Congress as discussed in your letter. As suggested in the 
     letter, Bob Frey, Deputy Inspector General, and I met with 
     Stacy Carlson on December 16, 1994, to further discuss these 
     audits. As a result, I have a good idea as to what needs to 
     be done to successfully accomplish these audits. Therefore, 
     the OIG is very willing to accept this responsibility, and 
     will perform the associated tasks in a totally professional 
     and nonpartisan manner.
       As indicated in your letter, these audits can best be 
     performed by contracting with an independent accounting firm 
     or firms for a series of audits that will result in a final 
     consolidated report of the financial and operational status 
     of the Congress. In order to establish accountability at the 
     beginning of the 104th Congress, and make recommendations for 
     control and operational improvements for building a more 
     efficient, cost-effective administrative structure, I propose 
     that the consolidated report address issues as of December 
     31, 1994. This audit effort would, as you indicated, 
     complement the OIG audit plan and greatly expedite the 
     initial review of House operations, in a significant number 
     of areas. Continuing OIG audit effort would, of course, still 
     be required in other areas beyond the scope of these audits 
     and in additional areas as the incoming House Officers make 
     changes in their operations.
       To establish accountability at the beginning of the 104th 
     Congress, the independent accounting firm(s) would be 
     responsible for preparing audited financial statements 
     reflecting the: (i) overall financial position, (ii) results 
     of operations, (iii) cash flows or changes in financial 
     position, and (iv) reconciliations to budget reports for all 
     House activities. This effort would include audits of House 
     Information Systems (HIS) financial activities, and all 
     revolving funds, contingent funds, commercial functions, 
     etc., as of December 31, 1994. It would also include a 
     determination as to whether the internal control structure 
     provides reasonable assurance of achieving generally accepted 
     control objectives and all applicable laws and regulations 
     have been complied with fully. The financial statements would 
     be prepared in accordance with the American Institute of 
     Certified Public Accountant's ``Generally Accepted Accounting 
     Principles'' and audited in accordance with the General 
     Accounting Office's ``Government Auditing Standards.'' 
     Furthermore, this effort would be in compliance with the 
     applicable provisions of the Chief Financial Officers Act 
     (P.L. 101-576), Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 
     103-62) and Government Management Reform Act (P.L. 103-356). 
     The OIG would review all work performed by the independent 
     accounting firm(s) to ensure the completeness and quality of 
     that work.
       With respect to operational areas, I have identified two 
     primary areas needing review--financial and HIS operations. 
     The financial operations include audits in the OIG audit plan 
     designed to evaluate economy, efficiency and effectiveness of 
     program operations. These audits would address areas beyond 
     pure funds accountability, in an effort to identify ways to 
     eliminate waste, inefficiencies, fraud, abuse and 
     mismanagement, and highlight areas for contracting out, 
     privatizing, streamlining, downsizing and elimination. 
     Additional details concerning the financial operations audit 
     plan are included in Enclosure 1. The audit of HIS operations 
     would include reviews of the general controls (including 
     management, data center operations and data center 
     protection) and system development, acquisition and 
     modification controls (including user satisfaction, system 
     development life cycle and project documentation), and 
     confidentiality, integrity and availability testing. The 
     audit program for performing this audit is included as 
     Enclosure 2.
       As indicated in your letter, audit coverage of joint 
     Senate-House entities will need to be identified at a later 
     date. Once agreement is reached with the Senate, I will 
     develop a detailed proposal concerning audit coverage for 
     these entities and submit my audit proposal to you for your 
     review.
       I will be contacting the Office of the General Counsel 
     later today to request a legal opinion on the most 
     expeditious method to contract for the independent accounting 
     firm(s), while assuring competitive bidding to the maximum 
     extent practical. Once I get this legal opinion, I will make 
     a recommendation to you as to the best method for proceeding. 
     In addition, as soon as I can estimate the contract costs, I 
     will apprise you of the funding requirements so that 
     reprogramming can be expeditiously accomplished.
       With respect to the issue of additional staffing, I have 
     included an organization chart (Enclosure 3) which depicts 
     our current staffing (both Subcommittee on Administrative 
     Oversight, Committee on House Administration approved 
     permanent OIG staff and General Accounting Office detailees), 
     and proposed additional staffing needed to make the OIG fully 
     functional, considering the additional audit requirements to 
     be assumed by the OIG in the 104th Congress. The total 
     additional funding required for Fiscal Year 1995 is $494,000, 
     consisting of $372,000 in personnel costs, and $122,000 in 
     equipment, software, supplies and other similar costs. The 
     justification for the additional staffing is also included as 
     Enclosure 4. Since personnel hiring can take a considerable 
     amount of time and additional staff members are critically 
     needed to accomplish the tasks discussed above, I would hope 
     that this issue 
[[Page H74]] can be addressed at the earliest possible time so that the 
appropriate staffing authorization and reprogramming can be expedited.
       An identical letter has been sent to Congressman Nussle. If 
     you should need additional information or want to discuss 
     this matter further, please do not hesitate to call me on 
     x61250.
           Sincerely,
                                              John W. Lainhart IV,
                                                Inspector General.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important change 
in House rules. Like many of my Democratic colleagues, I favor many of 
the reforms being instituted today.
  As a freshman member in 1992, I was honored to chair a task force on 
changes in House rules. One of my top priorities was to see that this 
institution was held more accountable to the American people. I believe 
that the proposed comprehensive audit of all our financial records and 
physical assets is a big step in ensuring our accountability to our 
constituents.
  This is an opportunity for improvement--one every Member should 
welcome who is actively seeking to use taxpayer dollars more 
efficiently.
  I know that a comprehensive audit, if properly executed, will be an 
important management tool here in this House. If a truly independent 
firm performs the audit, then we can take advantage of new technologies 
and management practices and identify the areas where we must improve 
our efficiency, accountability, and effectiveness.
  However, I have specific concerns that are not addressed and that is 
that the Speaker and the House Oversight Committee must carefully 
monitor the money appropriated to the Inspector General to conduct the 
audit and promptly implement the recommended changes so we can get the 
most for the taxpayers' money and provide the best services for our 
constituencies.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, Section 107 of the House rules package directs the House 
Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive House audit. This will be 
both a financial and performance audit of all House services and 
operations.
  Mr. Speaker, 39 months ago in October 1991, I stood on this very spot 
and called for full disclosure of Members with House bank overdrafts. A 
key to restoring the credibility of Congress, I said then, was to hold 
ourselves accountable. And I and 6 of my colleagues, the so-called Gang 
of 7, pressed for an open House. Our calls for candor were met with 
intransigence, but the outrage of the American people was overwhelming. 
We did learn the details of the House bank overdrafts, and let me 
stress to my colleagues who are listening now that that one specific 
limited GAO audit of a House function, a House service, led to several 
criminal convictions.
                              {time}  2220

  My colleagues, we introduced a bill one year later in October 1992, 
House Resolution 595, to require an independent House audit. Today's 
House action is the culmination of that effort.
  Results of these audits, which will be performed by the Inspector 
General in consultation with the GAO and a major independent accounting 
firm will be made public, and therefore the people will have more 
information than ever before regarding House operations past and 
present, and that will go a long way toward restoring the integrity and 
credibility of this proud institution.
  I urge approval of the rule. Let the sunshine in and open the books 
of the people's House to scrutiny by the people.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this proposal as well to 
conduct an audit of the financial and administrative operations of the 
House. But it really does not go far enough. I suspect that the audit 
itself is likely to show that we have been conducting our business in a 
responsible, professional manner. One of the reasons that has been the 
case is that we have had professional, nonpartisan, individuals 
conducting these affairs, and we reached that agreement in a 
nonpartisan way, as Members will recall.
  But, we have two problems with this. I am going to vote for it, as is 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and probably the other 
speakers, but the two deficiencies are one because it is a closed rule 
and we cannot insist that we continue to conduct the administrative and 
financial nonlegislative operations of this House in a nonpartisan 
professional manner which we could if we had an open rule, and 
secondly, the person who has been put in this position is not 
nonpartisan.
  I will not repeat the arguments for why there ought to be an open 
rule because my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
knows them by heart. He is certainly the most persuasive, articulate 
proponent of an open rule. But I guess where you sit is where you stand 
now.
  We are faced with a closed rule where we cannot improve this 
amendment. I do think we ought to raise that issue, though, because I 
am sure other Members of the House have read the articles about the 
individual that has been appointed to this position as I have. It 
raises very serious concern. I do not know Mr. Faulkner. I do know he 
was head of the Young Republicans, that he has been investigated and 
interviewed on any number of partisan political issues. At one point he 
was asked by investigators about leaking documents to the Reagan 
campaign and he said, yes, we have been obtaining leaked material from 
whistle blowers and passing them on.
  This is not the nonpartisan professional individual we are looking 
for.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan group 
appointed the current Inspector General.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle].
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, this comprehensive audit of House 
financial records and administrative operations will prevent in the 
future the kinds of problems we have seen with the House restaurant, 
the House Post Office and the House bank and will identify whether and 
to what extent other House units have been in compliance with law and 
House rules and have operated effectively and efficiently. It will 
provide necessary information to the public to determine the manner in 
which taxpayer funds have been used and will ensure accountability in 
the administration of this House.
  This audit should examine, amongst other things, monies in the 
contingent fund, monies expended by legislative service organizations, 
House officers accounts, committee accounts and the Architect of the 
Capitol. It should also look into allegations concerning ghost 
employees and official payrolls. This audit will set an important 
precedent for openness and accountability and is a much desired reform.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1. But again, I must 
reiterate my disappointment about the procedure we are using today. I 
am deeply disappointed that this bill is coming before the House under 
a closed rule. Not very long ago, the new chairman of the Rules 
Committee, my friend from New York said that when he admonished members 
about the use of closed rules, that our Republican friends were ``not 
simply engaging is some procedural or partisan tantrum. We are 
instead'' he said, ``trying to warn against what we perceive as the 
deliberate decline of democracy in this House.'' (April, 2, 1993). It 
is somewhat shocking, after all the speeches, that on the first day of 
the new Republican run House we are proceeding under a closed rule.
  However, it is important today that we are moving forward on a bill, 
that has been blocked for too long. The House passed this bill, 
essentially, twice in the last Congress only to see our efforts 
thwarted by Republican led efforts in the Senate. The Democratic and 
the Republican Members of the House want this bill and want it to move 
forward. On this point, there is great bipartisan agreement.
  [[Page H75]] We have gone a long way toward making sure that the 
Congress lives under the same laws as any other American. Most pieces 
of legislation we have passed apply to Congress. The Americans With 
Disabilities Act which I proudly cosponsored specifically applies to 
Congress as did the Civil Rights Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the Fair 
Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The House has 
also had in place, since 1988, prohibitions against employment 
discrimination.
  H.R. 1 will ensure that all Members of the Congress--not just House 
Members--live under all of the laws we pass and do so permanently, not 
just as an internal House rule but as an ironclad law.
  I cannot tell you how many times I have had businessmen and women 
complain that Congress passes laws and then simply exempts itself. They 
are frustrated. They want us to share the same challenges they have 
when they try to start a business, or try to create new jobs for their 
community. They need and deserve to know that we live up to the same 
standards that we expect from them, and afford our employees the same 
protections that any other American worker deserves.
  Most of my constituents did not know that the Congressional 
Accountability Act passed the House last year by a vote of 427 to 4. 
They did not know because the Senate failed to act to make it law. In 
early September, I wrote to urge the Senate committee on Government 
affairs to have the Senate act promptly. I told them that the Congress 
could never engender trust among the American people until the Congress 
lives by the same rules as the rest of the Nation. When the Senate did 
not act, we made
 congressional accountability part of the House rules.
  But the American people deserve something more than an internal House 
rule--they deserve an ironclad law passed by and applying to both 
Houses of Congress.
  I want to go home and tell those constituents that we have answered 
their plea. I want to tell them that we meet the same requirements that 
they do--that we follow the same laws they follow from OSHA to fair 
labor standards. I want to tell them that our employees have the same 
protections theirs do, from anti-age discrimination to family and 
medical leave. Perhaps the shared experience will help us write better, 
more careful laws. Just as importantly, this is about common sense, 
trust and accountability. That is why we are all here, late into the 
evening, finishing the work which began in the last Congress. I hope 
all my colleagues will join me in moving forward on H.R. 1.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how fascinating it is for me 
to see you in your role tonight, and also see my good friend, the 
gentleman from California, Frank Riggs, back here after a 2-year 
absence because it was 4 years ago that Frank and I and five other 
freshmen blew the whistle on the House bank and then 3 years ago we 
blew the whistle on the House post office. The interesting thing, Mr. 
Speaker, is that after 4 years and 3 years respectively we still have 
not seen a number of internal documents from either of those 
investigations, taxpayer funded investigations of taxpayer operations.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], says this is 
all behind us, but the honest answer is we do not know if it is behind 
us because for decades these books simply have not been audited, nor 
have we had the access to those very documents.
  Former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, now facing charges connected to 
the stationery store, has an intriguing defense. He says he was not the 
only Congressman who misused the stationery store and bought chairs and 
champagne buckets and other things, all with public money and all 
personal gifts. And you know his defense team might be right because we 
do not know, but after this audit is done, we will know, and when we 
know, you will know too.
                              {time}  2230

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here 
today--a new day in Congress--where Members will finally open the doors 
of the House to greater public input and disclosure.
  The idea of the House audit was a brainchild of the Gang of Seven. I 
am delighted to join my fellow gang members here today and am pleased 
that the leadership included our idea in the rules package.
  I am not even sure why we are debating this issue. If a company the 
size of the House of Representatives did not report the activities of 
its officers and directors to its shareholders, it would not survive--
disclosure is a key component to gaining the public trust essential for 
survival in a market economy.
  It is ridiculous not to support this proposal. The American people 
are the shareholders of our American Government and deserve to know the 
activities of their Representatives.
  Members of the House have been embarrassed and distracted by scandals 
in its bank, post office, and other departments. An independent 
inspector general would conduct audits to expose fraud, waste, and 
abuse.
  I wholeheartedly support a comprehensive House audit and urge my 
colleagues to do likewise. It is a proposal that will ensure that the 
House of Representatives remains The People's House.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, on October 1, 1991, I stood 
here on this House floor and I said, ``What are we trying to hide from 
the American people? What do we have to fear?''
  Today we have a historic opportunity to vote to open up the books of 
the U.S. Congress in a very open and complete way. We know that 
sunshine is the best disinfectant, and never in the history of this 
Congress have we ever had an open and complete audit of the books of 
this Congress for the American people to view.
  And echoing the comments of my colleagues who were involved with me, 
my six other colleagues, I fully encourage the Inspector General to not 
only do the fiscal 1995 audit, but I would encourage the Inspector 
General to look back, to look back several years at some areas of the 
Congress that have been called into question, LSO's the House 
restaurant system, the Speaker's contingent fund, the disposal of 
office equipment that has raised everyone's eyebrows, but we never have 
seen the details.
  I am pleased tonight to be here to support this very important part 
of our House rules.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts offered today and 
believe this audit will go a long way to cut waste and save taxpayer 
money, streamline the process. But let us go a step further. Let us 
require the audit to include unused office allowance funds.
  I am concerned. We still do not know what exactly happens to that 
money. Many of us agree funds left over from our office budgets should 
not be reprogrammed, but instead returned to the Federal Treasury for 
deficit reduction. Let us use this opportunity to find the means to 
that end.
  This audit will ensure that House operations are efficient and 
effective, and this investigation will ensure this audit is complete.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff].
  (Mr. ZELIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of section 107 of this rules 
package authorizing a comprehensive House audit of House financial 
records, physical assets, and facilities.
  All the rules changes we are considering today--cutting committees 
and committee staff, ending baseline budgeting, making the 
[[Page H76]] laws of the land apply to Congress--are critical. We are 
reforming this institution and restoring the faith of the American 
people.
  However, while these reforms may grab the headlines, I believe the 
section authorizing an audit of House functions is perhaps the most 
important reform of all. For the first time the American people will 
have the opportunity to see how their tax dollars are being used and 
often wasted on Congress itself.
  I am a small businessman who knows that keeping track of where the 
money goes is the only sound way to run a business. Slush funds, sloppy 
management, or outright fraud will land you either in bankruptcy or 
jail.
  As the owner of a small business I must make sure that my financial 
statements and inventory are accurate
 and up-to-date. A bank considering issuing me a loan--or potential 
investors--would accept nothing less than a close examination of my 
balance sheet before making any decisions.

  Why, then, the House of Representatives has escaped a similar 
analysis for its investors--the American taxpayers--is beyond me. It is 
time for a change.
  We should pass this section authorizing an audit of House activities, 
and then the entire rules package, to let the sun shine in.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we all understand this provision in the rule 
this evening was an opportunity for people to rehash the problems that 
beset this institution in the past that we are, thank God, well under 
way to resolving.
  But what I think is not something that was intended to be brought up 
tonight--but which is central to the whole question of the audit, which 
will be broadly supported on a bipartisan basis--is who will do the 
audit, how will it be administered?
  Now, the real issue here is who appoints the administrative 
authorities in this institution. There has been a change. When 
Republicans were in the minority, they wanted bipartisanship. They 
wanted equal access. They wanted professionalism. They wanted no taint 
of partisan activity.
  But now the worm has turned. Now the Republicans find themselves in 
the majority.
  What they have done is they have reversed the field. They have now 
called for a different structure, one that places in the hands of an 
administrator appointed by the Speaker the authority to manage this 
institution in a way that could become as partisan as we can imagine.
  I think that is tragic. I think that is wrong. And I support the 
audit, but I am very concerned about the way it will be managed by a 
partisan leader.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the speaker from the other 
side that he had 40 years to ask for this audit and did not do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two points.
  First of all, a good reason for doing the audit is that we do not 
know what we will find. When we did this in Michigan 2 years ago after 
a large number of years of Democratic rule, we discovered a major 
scandal in the House fiscal agency. As a result of that discovery, we 
currently have three former staff members serving prison time, four 
more on probation, three still in the courts. That is an example of the 
type of thing you may find, and it is not a result of the Members' 
misbehavior but of staff misbehavior.
  My second point, all of the discussion has been about fiscal aspects, 
but the operational aspects of the audit are equally, if not more, 
important, in particular the computer activities which I hope to audit.
  Just a few weeks ago a Member came to me that spent $22,000 for a 
file server last year. It is now useless.
  I urge that we go ahead with both the fiscal and operational audit 
and do it well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). All time has expired.
  The question is on section 107 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 430, 
nays 1, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 12]

                               YEAS--430

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     [[Page H77]] Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--1

       
     Fattah
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brown (FL)
     Yates
       

                              {time}  2251

  So section 107 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER (Mr. Torkildsen). Section 108 is now debatable for 20 
minutes.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] will be recognized for 
10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] will 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, my grandma used to say that it is wrong 
to teach our kids to do as I say and not as I do. As parents of three 
teenagers, my wife and I believe that we need to set a good example for 
our children. It is my fervent belief that this philosophy should apply 
to the U.S. Congress as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in recent 
years the actions of our Government have been, in essence, to do as I 
say and not as I do.
  On behalf of the freshmen who promised their constituents 
consideration on the first day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
leadership for this opportunity. The failure of the previous Congress 
to pass the legislation is unfortunate. We have, in effect, been saying 
to the American people, ``You must comply with the rules and 
regulations we pass, but we don't.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act will put an end to 
this hypocrisy and put our House in order. Today the new Congress is 
telling the American people that we have heard their demand for change 
and that on the first day we meant what we said in that we will begin 
to play by the same rules as
 those who we were elected to serve.

  I understand that some Members are opposed to the closed rule, but 
the bottom line is that H.R. 1 is virtually identical to a bill, H.R. 
4822, which passed this House on August 10, 1994, on a 427 to 4 vote. 
That bill has been thoroughly debated in committee. subcommittee and 
here on the House Floor. To my 13 new Democratic freshman colleagues I 
say, ``I apologize to you for denying you the opportunity for review of 
this legislation in committee, but the time has come now to act 
responsibly. As you know, we have pledged to the American people to 
change the way we do business in this House.''
  The Republican freshman Members have demanded change from this 
leadership, and we have demanded that a vote occur today on 
congressional accountability. We feel this legislation is vitally 
important and should be passed today in order to reestablish this as 
the people's House. We must now take the initiative and pass this 
important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been said so often today, this is truly a 
historical day. We are witnessing something on the floor today that we 
may never have observed before. For the first time the people on the 
other side are in charge, and we are seeing two completely closed 
rules, but probably for the first time every they have proposed a 
closed rule within a bill brought up under a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
                             {time}   2300

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for 
accountability, the Congressional Accountability Act, to bring Congress 
in compliance with the ten laws such as fair labor, civil rights, 
Americans with Disabilities Act and others.
  As a freshman Member of the Congress, I was appalled to find out that 
this body had exempted itself from the very laws that they had passed 
on small business and the consumers of America. When I toured the 
offices of Congress in the Cannon and Longworth Buildings, I found 
exits blocked, boxes packed. Staff members could not have exited in a 
fire. As a restaurateur, if that happened in my business, I would not 
only have been fined, but I would have been closed down that very day 
for failure to observe common safety practices in my business. I think 
this Congress can make a statement to America tonight, and to every 
small business, that we understand the burdens we have placed on them, 
and that we are willing to accept those very burdens on ourself. That 
is the least we can do. The Congressional Accountability Act should and 
must pass.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor. It should pass. This is a bad rule and it 
should be voted down. As was indicated, this bill is virtually 
identical to the bill that passed last year. One major exception, the 
ban on frequent flier miles has been ripped out of this bill. Why has 
it been ripped out? It has been ripped out because the laws that have 
been passed that we want to have applied here don't affect you as 
individuals. They affect the U.S. Government, because that is where the 
liability is. But the frequent flier prohibition strikes right at the 
people in this room. The people in this room should not use frequent 
flier miles for personal use. It is hypocrisy of the highest order that 
is not being dealt with this bill when it was dealt with in the bill we 
passed last fall. There is only one explanation, and that is greed. The 
Members who want to use frequent flier miles for personal use are 
ripping off the taxpayers of this country, and it is wrong and it 
should be stopped today.
  So if you believe in bipartisanship, vote this rule down and let us 
do this right.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
the land of Lincoln, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the 
Congressional Accountability Act. For years, Members of Congress have 
exempted themselves above many of the laws that we impose on the 
private sector. It is time we held ourselves accountable to the same 
standards that we expect of our constituents.
  The House passed this bill last August by a vote of 427 to 4. At that 
time, the provisions of this bill were deliberated to the fullest 
extent possible. The rule today allows the House to expedite the 
process to bring Congress in line with the laws of the land under which 
every American citizen must live. When this measure is adopted, 
Congress will be subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 
Americans With Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 will apply to Congress.
  We are here to make positive changes in the way Congress operates. 
Congress has delayed far too long on this initiative requiring us to 
live by the same rules as everyone else. Congressional Accountability 
is a step in the right direction, and it is time to bring it to a vote.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal 
of discussion of history tonight, so let us quote Karl Marx. ``History 
repeats itself; the first time in history and the second time as 
farce.'' Farce is what we are getting tonight. It is from the 18th 
Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.
  This is almost exactly what the House did before, but there are some 
[[Page H78]] differences. When the Democratic majority brought this 
bill to the floor last time, it allowed in the rule 14 amendments, 8 of 
which could be designated by Republicans.
  You are bringing up a closed rule on a substantive bill for no good 
reason. You are going to debate it after midnight. You told us you 
would be family friendly. You forgot to tell us it would be the Addams 
Family that would be friendly, because we will be doing it at 3 o'clock 
in the morning. Why do something perfectly sensible, but block a chance 
to vote on frequent fliers, do it at 3 o'clock in the morning, don't 
allow amendments?
  Let me tell you from experience. When you are in the majority, 
sometimes inevitably you got to defend some dumb things. But in 1 day 
you have been dumber than we were in 2 years. What are you doing it 
for? Why not wait until tomorrow. You said we could wait.
  Do you want to hide the debate on frequent fliers? I do not know why 
the new Speaker is so attached to the frequent flier rule. But why not 
talk about it tomorrow? Why now allow some amendments?
  History? We made this history last year. We made history once. You 
cannot make history twice, unless you flunked it the first time, and 
the way you guys are handling this, I think some of you must have, 
because you do not understand what is going on.
  We are in favor of this. Most of us worked hard for it. We passed it 
last year. It was bipartisan. Why are you rushing this through on a 
totally closed rule?
  Comparison: We had eight amendments in order from Republicans. We had 
the frequent flier thing in here. We let it be debated during the day. 
You are rushing it through, because the Republicans promised it would 
be done on the first day? It will be after midnight. Now you are even 
fooling with the clock. Be sensible. Do not get carried away. Do it 
tomorrow, and do not exempt yourself from the most important law of 
all, common sense.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mesa, AZ [Mr. Salmon].
  (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this has been an awesome day for me. I was 
able to sit here on the floor of this very hallowed place with my four 
children, and I can't tell you the experience this has been for me, to 
be able to sit among some of the most intelligent minds of our country, 
and to be able to have just heard the very eloquent speech of Mr. 
Frank. I am impressed. You are even better in person than you are on C-
SPAN.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, it will be 
better tomorrow afternoon if you get a little sleep.
  Mr. SALMON. Nice try. But I would like to say this: One thing I have 
learned over my political career is that I know I am an incredibly 
average person, and the incredibly average person that I talk to out 
there cannot understand why we cannot move this to a vote and why we 
cannot move it quickly.
  I think some good points have been made, and we will get an 
opportunity I believe to visit some of these issues later. But I do not 
want to wait. I want to move, and I want to vote now. Let us vote this 
through. Let us make Congress live under the very same laws as any 
other American. It is the right thing.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I am a freshman who like many of you ran on 
the issue of reform. I campaigned for, supported, and have voted for 
many of the things we have dealt with today. So great was the call for 
reform in our freshman class and across this country that I really 
expected to come into a House today that would be liberated by the free 
flow of ideas.
  It has been just the opposite. On our very first day, the most 
symbolic day, I have come into a House were 100 percent of our rules 
are closed, where we will not have the opportunity to advance our ideas 
and see them win or lose in the court of public opinion. That is not 
allowed in the new Congress.
  There is no opportunity for amendments, no opportunity for fine 
tuning, and no opportunity to divide the question in a way that will 
allow us to represent our constituencies within many-itemed bills.
  This is not the new way, the good way. This is what you all 
campaigned against. And I think we should learn from Jerry Solomon who 
said the people are sick and tired of political gamesmanship. They want 
back their House, they want it open and democratic. I think so.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Cincinnati, OH, [Mr. Chabot].
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded on the principle that 
no person is above the law. It is more than shameful--it is worse than 
outrageous--that Congress routinely has exempted itself from the laws 
that others must obey. From the labor laws enacted in 1938, to the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, to OSHA--Congress has said: ``These laws 
apply to others, but not to us. Not to us.''
  At long last, these exemptions are going to stop. Finally, we're 
going to recognize that if a law is good enough to apply to the 
American people, then by golly, it's good enough to apply to Congress. 
And if any law isn't good enough to apply to Congress, then certainly 
it's not good enough to apply to everyone else.
  When Congress has to live by the laws it passes, then Congress will 
take care to pass better laws. I urge support for the rule.

                              {time}  2310

  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave reservations 
about the rule proposed for consideration of H.R. 1.
  Although I strongly support the Congressional Accountability Act, and 
although I believe it was wise of the new leadership to bring up 
substantially the same bill that was overwhelmingly approved by the 
House of Representatives last August, I strongly disapprove of the 
manner in which the majority has proposed considering this legislation.
  I understand the desire of the new Republican leadership to bring the 
Congressional Accountability Act to the floor today, to fulfill the 
promise made in the ``Contract With America.'' But voting on a major 
piece of legislation on the very day it is introduced, without having 
an opportunity to amend it is simply the wrong way to legislate--and 
Members on the other side of the aisle know that.
  In fact, our Republican colleagues have chastised Democratic members, 
more times than we would like to remember, for speeding bills to the 
floor before there had been adequate opportunity to review them, and 
for not allowing amendments to be offered to them. ``Gag rule'' was the 
term our Republican friends used to describe rules like the one before 
us now.
  To those of us who had to bear the brunt of the Republicans' 
criticism of such rules, it seems utterly outrageous--and rather 
ironic--that in this new era which has been heralded by promises of 
openness and fairness in the legislative process, the very first piece 
of legislation brought to floor will be considered in this manner. This 
rule makes us question whether criticism of closed rules issued by the 
majority party during the last Congress was based on true belief in 
opening up the amending process, or whether it was simply a means of 
generating public anger toward Democrats.
  In fact, this procedure is worse than anything I can recall under 
Democratic control of the House. In the 18 years I have served in the 
House, I cannot remember a time when a bill advanced by the Democratic 
leadership was handled in so rushed and closed a manner as this one. 
Under this rule, this bill is to be considered on the very day it is 
introduced; there will have been no hearings or markup of this 
legislation--in fact, not even any informal review by the committees of 
jurisdiction; there will have been no review by the Rules Committee for 
the purpose of granting a rule; and, of course, there will be no 
opportunity to amend the bill--other than through a motion to 
recommit--and no time to plan amendments even if there were such an 
opportunity.
  [[Page H79]] For those of us who were part of the 103d Congress, the 
fact that this legislation is being considered in this way is less 
deplorable than it would otherwise be because the bill is substantially 
the same as last Congress' H.R. 4822. H.R. 4822 was a well-constructed, 
well-thought-out bill in large part because, unlike H.R. 1, it was 
developed through the regular legislative process. H.R. 4822 was 
considered by the committees of jurisdiction, as well as the Rules 
Committee for purposes of granting a rule; there was sufficient time 
between the day the bill was introduced and the day it was sent to the 
floor for Members to familiarize themselves with it; and most of the 
amendments Members wanted to offer to it were allowed to be offered. In 
other words, we had ample opportunity to know what we would be voting 
on and to help shape and improve the bill.
  But the 86 Members who are new to the 104th Congress will not have 
that opportunity. Their right to review and amend this legislation is 
being abrogated for the sale of political expediency. It is unfair--and 
wrong--to ask them to vote on a very important piece of legislation 
without giving them any chance to review the bill, let alone help shape 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that it is only because of the political 
imperative dictated by the ``Contract With America'' that we are 
proceeding in this manner on a major piece of legislation. And I hope 
that we will have the assurance of the new leadership that the 
procedure being used to consider H.R. 1 is an aberration, and not a 
signal of how legislation will be handled during this Congress.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield one-
half minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams]
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Perhaps an uninterested observer listening to the debate today, Mr. 
Speaker, might be uninformed enough to have found a little hypocrisy on 
both sides, and maybe listening to the debate on this issue, an 
uninformed observer might not understand that as stronger reform bill 
than the piece now being offered came before this body written by 
Democrats just a few months ago, and was eventually blocked by 
Republicans. I would not say that the action today is hypocritical, but 
an uninformed observer might.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). The gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this section is a rule providing for 
consideration of the Congressional Accountability Act. This is the 
exact same bill that we Democrats passed in the House last year.
  However, sadly, the Republicans derailed it in the Senate, so I do 
not want anybody out there thinking that we Democrats in the House 
opposed this. We proposed it, and it passed the House last year. I 
strongly supported this measure last year and I will support it again 
this year.
  Let me add that I am delighted that the Republicans seem to be on 
board this time. Better late than never. However, Mr. Speaker, I must 
rise in opposition to the rule we are operating under. This is a closed 
rule, plain and simple.
  My left ear has gone deaf from all the catcalls and the charges of 
gag rule from the minority in the last couple of years, but now they 
come to the floor and put two closed rules together, so I am really 
disappointed in the actions of the minority today. Over the years, the 
cries from the Republicans, maybe Mr. Solomon learned something from me 
or maybe I learned something from him.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman would yield, believe me, I 
learned a lot from you, Joe.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. OK, but I could spend all week reciting quotations from 
Members on the Republican side calling restrictive rules of any kind 
unconstitutional, undemocratic, unfair. Yet, the first day of the 
session, on the very first item on our legislative agenda, what do we 
get? A closed rule within a closed rule. I am very, very disappointed 
in the party who is crying for open rules and free debates, to come 
forward today with this rule.
  I know some of my Republican colleagues will argue that we do not 
need an open rule on this particular measure because the House passed 
the same legislation in the last session, under Democratic leadership, 
let me add. Yet I cannot recall a single occasion on which my 
Republican colleagues supported a closed restricted rule on any 
previously-passed piece of legislation.
  Let me add that when the Democratic leadership brought the 
Congressional Accountability Act to the floor last year, we made 14 
amendments in order. The scream was ``It is a gag rule, it is a closed 
rule.'' Here today we come and we cannot put one amendment in order; 
they come with seven amendments into the bill. Evidently there has been 
an awakening of the Committee on Rules, or there has been a change in 
the heart of my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  However, I recall during debate last year my good friend and the new 
chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] arguing for more 
open rules on a previously passed bill due to the fact that there were 
so many new freshmen that had not read the bill and it was not fair. 
Evidently he has had some second thoughts. He thought they should be 
able to have greater say in the process. I can point to some freshmen 
this year, Mr. Speaker, who should be given the courtesy that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and his party thought we should 
have given them last year.
  Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as a bit ironic that notwithstanding the 
rhetoric, we are here with what last year my Republican friends would 
have called the gag rule. We were accused of having gag rules if they 
were preprinted in the Record, or moving a comma.
  This is a blatant closed rule, and as I say, they were talking about 
openness and allowing full debate. Maybe tomorrow or the next day may 
show something else, but today, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any openness 
coming from the other side.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Munci, IN [Mr. McIntosh].
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the voters of Muncie, 
Anderson, Richmond, and all of the Second District I rise in support of 
both the rule and the Congressional Accountability Act. Mr. Speaker, 
the time is now to make Congress accountable for the laws it imposes on 
the American people.
  For too long, Congress has told the American People: ``Do as I say, 
not as I do.'' Congress is currently exempt from laws such as the Civil 
Rights Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA. For example: House 
Annex I--the O'Neill Building, could not legally be occupied by any 
private enterprise. It would be shut down. Only Congress, with its 
exemption from many workplace safety regulations, can reside there. Mr. 
Speaker, the time is now to end this double standard.
  The Congressional Accountability Act will cause Congress to make 
better laws. Bad laws will surely be changed as Congress feels their 
weight. And good laws protecting safety and civil rights will benefit 
congressional employees.
  James Madison wrote: ``This Constitution places elected officials 
under the law, thereby avoiding tyranny.'' Mr. Speaker, the Congress 
has not lived under all of the laws of the land for too long.
  The time is now to end the tyranny and make those laws apply to 
Congress.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to close by saying I do not support this closed rule. It 
blocks any effort to have an honest, open debate about real reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, do we 
not?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Prior to yielding further time, the 
gentleman does have 2\1/2\ minutes.
  [[Page H80]] Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute of our time 
to the gentleman from Westbury, NY [Mr. Frisa].
  Mr. FRISA. Mr. Speaker, for 40 years this Congress has been in an 
ivory tower, out of touch with reality, and out of touch with the 
American people. That is why the Congress thought it knew better, could 
pass its burdensome laws, rules and regulations for everyone else but 
for itself. That is going to change, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in November the American people knocked an elitist 
Congress off its pedestal. Tonight the majority will plant its feet 
firmly on the ground, and we stand proudly accountable to the American 
people for the laws that we will pass, because they should apply to us 
as well.
  I would urge support for this measure.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when Vaclav Havel came and spoke to the American people, 
he quoted Thomas Jefferson when he said that ``Words are plentiful, but 
deeds are precious.'' The American people want action, not protracted 
debate.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. Speaker, we must seize this historic day. Let us not let the 
American people down. The U.S. Congress must comply with the laws of 
the land. I strongly encourage my fellow colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule and ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that the 
Republican majority has not seen fit to allow amendments to the 
Congressional Accountability Act. Let me say at the outset that I 
support the intent of the Congressional Accountability Act. I have 
fought for the rights of American workers throughout my political 
career. I strongly believe that all employees, private and public, 
including Federal, State, and local and congressional employees, should 
be afforded the protection of our labor laws. I believe that the 
Congressional Accountability Act accomplishes that objective with 
regard to congressional employees in a manner that does not impinge 
upon the independence of the legislative branch nor the ability of 
Members to represent their constituents.
  Nevertheless, I am amazed that the Republican leadership has seen fit 
to deny Members any opportunity to amend this bill. This legislation is 
substantially the same bill that overwhelmingly passed the House last 
Congress under Democratic leadership. At that time, at least some 
amendments were permitted. As a matter of principle, the contention 
that the Congress should be covered by the labor statutes is so widely 
held in this body as to be beyond issue. So why bring the bill up under 
a gag rule? Surely no one contends that the Congressional 
Accountability Act was written on Mount Sinai.
  The stated purpose of the statute is to ensure that the Congress is 
subject to the same rules that we impose on private employers. Most 
private employers in this country are subject to the National Labor 
Relations Act. It is interesting to me that no effort has been made to 
at least apply that statute to those congressional employees who are 
not directly involved in the legislative process, such as janitorial 
and groundskeeping staff. Even if such an amendment were not adopted, I 
believe the debate would have been beneficial to both the Members and 
the public. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership has 
instead seen fit to gag the people's representatives. When the 
Republican leadership denies Members the right to fully participate in 
the legislative process on a noncontroversial issue like this, one 
cannot help but doubt their promises that future bills will be 
considered in an open and amendable manner.
  Finally, I would like to point out to my colleagues the relationship 
between this act and the so-called unfunded mandates bill. Today, we 
are voting to apply our labor laws to the U.S. Congress. Shortly, we 
will vote on legislation modifying Congress' power to enact laws that 
affect State and local governments. That bill, at present, contains no 
exemption for the application of our labor laws to State and local 
governments. I hope that the principle that we are voting for today--
that congressional employees should be protected by your labor laws--
will apply equally next week when considering whether State and local 
government employees shall receive equal protection under our labor 
laws.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). The question is on Section 
108 of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249, 
nays 178, not voting 7, as follows:
                              [Roll No 13]

                               YEAS--249

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     [[Page H81]] Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (FL)
     Cox
     Dornan
     Markey
     Vucanovich
     Yates

                             {time}   2333

  Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GORDON and Mrs. SCHROEDER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MOORHEAD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So section 108 of the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thomas). Title II of the resolution is 
now debatable for 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] will be recognized for 10 
minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the eight reform items considered previously 
represent the most visible elements of the House Republican reform 
agenda. These reforms, combined with the 23 additional changes made to 
the House rules in title II of this resolution, send a clear message to 
the American people that Congress is serious about changing the way 
Washington does business.
  Mr. Speaker, the need for the changes in title II is compelling. The 
rules governing committee jurisdictions and the general procedures 
governing the House are ineffective and out-of-date. They breed 
bureaucratic inertia and rigidity, and they are a hindrance to setting 
priorities and carrying out agendas.
  The rules governing the administration of the House have bred a 
patronage system that has brought scandal and embarrassment to this 
institution and have weakened both the public's image and the 
effectiveness of Congress.
  The reforms in title II are intended to make the House more 
accountable, professionalize the administrative management, and rebuild 
public confidence in representative government. Adoption of title II 
will bring about dramatic change to this institution while maintaining 
a structure of rules that achieve what Thomas Jefferson called ``a 
uniformity of proceeding in business'' and the ``order, decency, and 
regularity'' of a dignified public body.
  These reforms are long overdue. They have the support of the American 
people, and they deserve our strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to clarify some of the committee 
jurisdiction changes contained in section 202 of House Resolution 5.
  The jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture is amended to 
include inspection of livestock, and poultry, and meat products, and 
seafood and seafood products. As a result, the food inspection programs 
of the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration 
are consolidated under the Committee on Agriculture. The current 
jurisdictional arrangement with respect to food safety activities will 
remain in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The committee's jurisdiction is also been amended to include water 
conservation related to activities of the Department of Agriculture. 
This grants the committee jurisdiction over any measure that changes 
section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 with 
respect to agricultural activities in coastal zone areas.
  The Committee on Banking and Financial Services retains all of the 
existing authority of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs from the 103d Congress over financial services providers 
generally, including the activities and supervision of depository 
institutions and any affiliates. The committee's jurisdiction has been 
expanded, as well as clarified by this resolution.
  The committee is given jurisdiction over bank capital markets 
activities. In response to technological and market innovations, banks 
have sought to continue to service their traditional customer base by 
providing certain types of investment banking or functionally similar 
capital market services. The committee has
 jurisdiction over these capital markets activities engaged in by banks 
which include, but are not limited to, acting as a government 
securities broker or dealer under the Government Securities Act, acting 
as a municipal securities broker or dealer under section 15B of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, acting as an investment advisor under 
the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, providing loan guarantees and 
other similar off-balance sheet support, privately placing securities, 
securitizing loan assets of any type, syndicating and selling bank 
loans, engaging in transactions involving exchange-traded and over-the-
counter derivatives, and engaging in transactions involving other types 
of qualified financial contracts as that term is described in section 
11(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. A comprehensive summary of 
bank capital markets activities as industry practices have defined this 
term are contained in A Guide to the Capital Markets Activities of 
Banks and Bank Holding Companies (1990).

  In addition, the committee's jurisdiction is amended to expressly 
include depository institution securities activities generally, 
including the activities of any affiliate, except for the functional 
regulation under applicable securities laws not involving safety and 
soundness. This clarifies the committee's primary jurisdiction over the 
Glass-Steagall Act. It should be noted that the term ``depository 
institution'' specifically includes ``non-bank banks'' grandfathered 
under the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 and the committee 
has jurisdiction over any affiliate of a non-bank bank, other than a 
registered broker-dealer.
  Depository institution securities activities under the committee's 
jurisdiction would include any activity involving bank-eligible 
securities as described in section 5136 of the Revised Statutes (12 
U.S.C. 24) and any securities activity incidental to carrying on the 
business of banking. It would also include any activities by depository 
institutions, their holding companies, and any affiliates to:
  First, underwrite, deal in, broker, or distribute securities of any 
type, and engage in other securities activities as permitted by the 
appropriate federal banking agencies;
  Second, sponsor, organize, control, manage, and act as investment 
adviser to an investment company;
  Third, engage in, or acquire the shares of any company engaged in any 
securities activity so closely related to banking as to be a proper 
incident thereto.
  A list of current securities-related activities under the committee's 
jurisdiction that have been determined to be so closely related to 
banking as to be a proper incident thereto is described in Federal 
Reserve Board Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.25).
  Any securities activity conducted by a depository institution, its 
holding company, or any affiliate in a registered broker-dealer should 
be functionally regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission 
under applicable securities laws and the appropriate Federal banking 
agency jointly. The SEC would functionally regulate a registered 
broker-dealer affiliated with a depository institution for purposes of 
compliance with the legal and regulatory framework generally 
established for registered broker-dealers under the securities laws. 
SEC functional regulation under
 applicable securities laws will not be included in the committee's 
jurisdiction. Registered broker-dealers affiliated with insured 
institutions will also be supervised by the appropriate Federal banking 
agency, most likely the Federal Reserve Board, for compliance with 
applicable Federal banking laws and for purposes of protecting the 
safety and soundness of affiliated insured institutions. Supervision 
for safety and soundness purposes 
[[Page H82]] of a broker-dealer affiliated with a depository 
institution by the appropriate Federal banking agency is maintained 
within the committee's jurisdiction.
  Several significant changes are made to the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Commerce formerly the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
Those changes include the transfer of jurisdiction over the inspection 
programs of the Food and Drug Administration to the Committee on 
Agriculture. The current jurisdictional arrangement with respect to 
food safety activities would remain in the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities will retain 
the jurisdictional authority of the Committee on Education and Labor 
from the 103d Congress.
  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight combines the 
jurisdiction of the former 103d Congress committees on the District of 
Columbia, Government Operations, and Post Office and Civil Service. The 
resolution clarifies the committee's jurisdiction over the Federal 
Paperwork Reduction Act. It also clarifies the committee's jurisdiction 
over public information and records as they pertain to the Freedom of 
Information Act and the Privacy Act. This should not be construed to 
affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Oversight with 
respect to the Government Printing Office, or the Library of Congress, 
or House Information Systems, or the dissemination of such government 
information to the public.
  The Committee on House Oversight retains the jurisdictional authority 
of the Committee on House Administration from the 103d Congress, with 
the addition of jurisdiction over the Franking Commission. Jurisdiction 
over measures relating to the erection of monuments to the memory of 
individuals is transferred to the Committee on Resources.
  The Committee on International Relations retains the jurisdictional 
authority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs from the 103d Congress.
  The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary is amended to 
include administrative practice and procedure. This is added to 
reinforce the fact that, since 1946, the committee has had jurisdiction 
over the Administrative Procedures Act and the rights and remedies 
under administrative law.
  The Committee on National Security retains the jurisdictional 
authority of the Committee on Armed Services from the 103d Congress. 
Jurisdiction added to the committee includes tactical intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities of the Department of Defense. This 
clarifies the existing relationship between the committee and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The Committee on Resources retains the authority of the Committee on 
Natural Resources from the 103d Congress, with the addition of some 
jurisdictions formerly vested in the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, the Committee on House Administration, and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce from the 103d Congress.
  The jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business is amended to 
include measures relating to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 
Paperwork Reduction Act as they affect small business.
  The Committee on Science retains the jurisdictional authority of the 
Committee on Science, Space and Technology from the 103d Congress. 
Jurisdiction added to the committee includes marine research, which was 
formerly vested in the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries from 
the 103d Congress. This jurisdiction includes, but is not limited to, 
Coast and Geodetic Survey, Regional Marine Research Programs, Ocean 
Thermal Energy Conversion, Global Climate Change, Global Learning and 
Observation to Benefit the Environment, National Undersea Research 
Program, NOAA Corps, and NOAA fleet; and
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure retains the 
jurisdictional authority of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation from the 103d Congress. Jurisdiction added to the 
Committee includes Federal management of emergencies and natural 
disasters. This language is added to reflect an agreement reached in 
the 103d Congress between the Committee on Armed Services and the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. It transfers nearly all 
of the responsibility for the authorization and oversight of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure. Additionally, it is my understanding that, based on 
an agreement with the Office of Management and Budget, programs related 
to this jurisdictional transfer will be moved out of budget function 
050 to the budget function dealing with public works. Jurisdiction over 
measures relating to merchant marine, except for national security 
aspects of merchant marine will be further clarified by a memorandum of 
understanding between the National Security Committee and the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  In addition, the committee is granted jurisdiction over marine 
affairs, including coastal zone management, as they related to oil and 
other pollution of navigable waters. This vests the committee with 
primary jurisdiction over all aspects of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act, and the coastal nonpoint pollution program established in 
section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

                              {time}  2340

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I take this minute of time to indicate to my colleagues that at the 
end of this 20-minute block of time there will be a motion to recommit, 
and I want to apprise my colleagues of what that will be. For the newer 
members of this institution, you will get yet a third chance tonight to 
vote on a ban on gifts from lobbyists, you will get a third chance 
tonight to vote on a limit on royalties for books to one-third of 
annual salary, you will get a chance again this evening to vote on an 
open rule for the Congressional Accountability Act, and in addition to 
that, you will get a chance to institute some of the reforms that your 
friends and your colleagues have championed on this floor over the 
years, guaranteeing, for instance, a third of committee staff for 
minority, limiting the terms of the Speaker to three terms instead of 
four terms, bipartisan House Administrator, something championed on 
this floor day in and day out over the last session which we have had 
and now we do not have anymore, and you can have a chance to vote on 
that. Committee ratios must match.
  All of these reforms you will get a chance to vote on in the motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our new colleague, 
the gentleman from Friendswood, TX [Mr. Stockman].
  (Mr. STOCKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to speak in strong 
support of the reforms in title II. I was elected to Congress as a 
servant of the people; to limit the size and scope of the Federal 
Government and to clean up the mess here in Washington. This title has 
23 provisions and I will focus on just a few.
  In the Contract With America we committed to slash the number of 
committees and we have kept our word. This is revolutionary 
legislation. Today, we will eliminate three committees (Post Office, 
Merchant Marine, and District of Columbia). No full standing House 
committees has been eliminated since 1947. In addition, 25 
subcommittees will also be eliminated. The savings will be 
approximately $35 million. House committees, like Federal programs, 
ought not live forever.
  Our first order of business is to put the People's House in order. We 
signed a contract with the American people to look at every Federal 
action by the House will send a strong and clear message to the 
American people that we are serious about our purpose.
  This bill will ensure that what is said on the floor and in committee 
will be recorded verbatim for the American people to read. Staff 
members will no longer work into the middle of the night to conceal 
what was actually said in the People's House.
  This bill will end pork barrel projects on emergency spending bills. 
This change will make spending cuts easier.
   [[Page H83]] This bill will ban commemorative legislation like 
National Asparagus Day. Banning this practice will save at least 
$300,000 according to the Congressional Research Service and improve 
the operation of Congress by eliminating the 25 percent of floor time 
consumed by commemoratives.
  Last, and perhaps most importantly, this bill will require the Pledge 
of Allegiance as the third order of business each day. In 1988, the 
Democrats defeated an attempt to require the Pledge on the House floor. 
The Pledge ought not to be optional in the People's House and now it is 
not. I am proud of our great Nation and believe our best days are yet 
to come. We will set an example by beginning our day pledging 
allegiance to this country which has been so richly blessed.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you again for this historic opportunity to lead 
the debate on this bill. It is a good first step and sets an example 
that we are able to get our affairs in order. Let us move boldly ahead 
to return Congress and this Nation to the people. I urge adoption.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me express my disappointment with 
section 201 of the bill that is before us, where a partisan Chief 
Administrative Officer will replace a nonpartisan Chief Administrative 
Officer will replace a nonpartisan Director of Financial and Non-
Legislative Services.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle have been working for less 
partisanism, particularly in the administration of the House of 
Representatives.
  It was the Republicans who worked with us to develop the Director of 
Financial and Non-Legislative Services, being approved by both the 
majority and minority, reporting to a committee composed of equal 
numbers of Democrats and Republicans.
  What happens under this particular bill? That office is abolished and 
replaced with a partisan Chief Administrative Officer. A few months ago 
the Republicans favored bipartisanism in administration to avoid the 
abuse of power by any one party. Now, just a few months later, we see a 
complete reversal.
  What a missed opportunity to advance bipartisanism.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from West Chester, OH [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman, there are a lot of 
important reforms in title II of this part of the rules package 
tonight. One of those sections in there eliminates legislative service 
organizations or, as some have come to be known, taxpayer funded 
caucuses.
  The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], sitting in the back of the 
Chamber, spent 14 years, and I have joined him the last 4 years, along 
with other Members, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], in 
trying to reform these LSO's, but, no, we could never get real reform 
of LSO's. We could never get a full accounting of the funds. We could 
never build a wall between these taxpayer-funded caucuses and outside 
5013(c) organizations these foundations.
  And so putting this in the rules package guarantees that no longer 
will the U.S. House of Representatives have to fund these 
organizations. That means less space, less overhead, less cost to 
America's taxpayers.
  It is the right move, and the people who put this in here ought to be 
congratulated.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, included in the House rules package prepared 
by the Republican Conference being voted upon today are provisions to 
direct the House Oversight Committee to abolish all Legislative Service 
Organizations [LSO's], including the Democratic Study Group.
  The Republican rules package is being brought to the floor under a 
procedure which bars amendments. So today there will be no opportunity 
for the House to effectively debate the merits of an organization such 
as the Democratic Study Group or to consider proposals to allow the 
Democratic Study Group to continue to provide top-quality research 
within the House of Representatives.
  However, as the newly elected chairman of the Democratic Study Group 
for the 104th Congress, I cannot let this occasion pass without 
standing up to protest this misguided action on the part of the House 
Republican Conference.
  Although under the new Republican rules the Democratic Study Group 
will be allowed to reconstitute itself as a ``Congressional Member 
Organization,'' DSG's ability to have an office and staff and thus to 
produce the legislative research materials Members have relied upon for 
so long is being terminated.
  The Democratic Study Group has served the House of Representatives 
extremely well for over 30 years. Over this period of time, DSG has 
provided independent, indepth, and timely analyses of all legislation 
coming to the House floor.
  Over this more-than-30-year period, DSG has developed a reputation 
for independence and credibility, by providing unbiased information 
that presents both sides of controversial issues fairly and 
objectively. Consequently, DSG research materials have come to be 
relied upon not only by House Democrats, but also by Republican 
subscribers, the press, lobbyists, and congressional scholars. Indeed, 
at times, DSG has had well over 50 Republican subscribers.
  The quality of DSG research products has been noted by many 
independent observers. For example, scholar Norman Ornstein has written 
that DSG ``has evolved over the years into a group that provides solid, 
objective, and timely information'' on upcoming legislation.
  House Republicans have attempted to characterize their abolition of 
the Democratic Study Group as part of their efforts to cut costs and 
increase efficiency in the House--and yet terminating DSG does neither.
  The Democratic Study Group has been a cost-effective mechanism 
allowing rank-and-file Members of the House to pool their resources to 
have an independent staff that produced indepth legislative analyses 
that Members needed to carry out their legislative responsibilities.
  Instead of having 435 congressional offices have individual staffers 
attempt to read every bill and accompanying committee report coming to 
the House floor for a vote, the premise of the DSG has been to have a 
small, independent staff analyze these bills and provide interested 
offices with the indepth analyses that they need.
  As a result, the existence of DSG over the last three decades has 
actually increased the efficiency of the House of Representatives and 
reduced the cost to each Member of acquiring this indept information.
  DSG has not only increased efficiency within the House, it has also 
done so in a very cost-effective manner. With a staff of only 18--
including printers and support staff--the Democratic Study Group 
produces a prodigious amount of high-quality research materials for 
Members, the press, and other interested parties. For example, in the 
103d Congress alone, DSG produced 517 reports on legislation and major 
issues, totaling 7,793 pages. Any Republican claims that DSG has not 
been cost-effective simply ignore these facts.
  Furthermore, despite Republican claims to the contrary, the 
elimination of DSG does not save even $1 of taxpayer money and does not 
cut House staff by even one position. The new Republican rules don't 
cut office expense allowances or staff slots--they just restrict how 
Members are allowed to use their allowances and staff slots. Thus, 
under the new Republican rules, Members will simply now be free to use 
money currently used to pay DSG dues to meet other office expenses and
 be free to use staff slots currently used for a shared DSG employee to 
hire another personal staff member.

  If abolishing DSG doesn't cut costs or increase efficiency, what is 
the true motivation behind the move to terminate this 35-year-old 
organization which has served the House so well?
  The real motivation for House Republicans in terminating DSG is not 
hard to divine. In materials distributed in the Republican Conference 
on December 6, when the vote to eliminate DSG was taken, it is stated: 
``The demise of the DSG severely damages the 
[[Page H84]] power structure of the House Democrats.''
  Closing down DSG seems to be part of an effort to centralize 
information and to stifle debate on legislation that the new Republican 
majority produces.
  Indeed, House Republicans have moved to abolish DSG at the same time 
that they have promised to bring 10 complicated pieces of legislation 
to the House floor--the Republican ``Contract With America''--within 
the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. Thus, at the same time that 
the House is embarking on a furious legislative schedule, the staff 
most equipped to provide the minority party with legislative analyses 
has been abolished.
  Although a nonprofit organization is being formed that will attempt 
to provide high-quality DSG-like research services to interested 
Members and to others, it is a disservice to the House of 
Representatives that such a step is now necessary.
  Scholar Norman Ornstein has said that losing DSG as an integral part 
of the House of Representatives represents ``a real loss for 
Congress.'' More than that, it is a blow to free, open, and honest 
debate, and a rather blatant attempt to censor information and quash 
dissent in this body.

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Long Beach, CA [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, we heard a few hours ago the word hypocrisy 
used; we have heard about the gift ban that needs to come before us. 
The facts of life are that this is not the place to discuss the gift 
ban, but if we are going to discuss it let us also discuss political 
action committees. Five or ten dollar gifts such as the nasty lips 
ointment which arrived in our offices today from a Vermont firm, that 
is not the problem. The problem is there is too much money floating 
around in American politics at $10,000 an election cycle per political 
action committee, PAC's.
  That is what we have to deal with. The fact that you can hold parties 
at the Republican Club and at the Democratic Club and get $500 at a 
clip every quarter from Washington lobbyists is the real lobbyist 
problem. It is not the $5 or $10 gift that pops up, the raisins from 
Fresno, or whatever.
  I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
what the Republican party offered this Chamber last year and they voted 
down was a ban on PAC's and a ban on soft money. Next time we ought to 
pass that legislation if we are really serious about curbing lobbyist 
influence.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend--and he is my friend--who just 
spoke that if he was serious and the party he represents was serious, 
they also would talk about the PAC issue and open up the books to 
GOPAC. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a PAC where people 
in this country give unlimited amounts of money where we do not know 
who gives it, what relationship they have to the legislation that is 
pending in this institution.
  Let me speak to another issue, Mr. Speaker, that was raised here this 
evening, and that is the issue of closing down voices. We have had a 
disturbing trend occur in the last 2 months in this institution. LSO's, 
Women's Caucus, their voices closed down; African-American voices 
closed down; Hispanic voices closed down; Democratic Research, the 
voice of our party, closed down.
  Then what do we have today? Three closed rules closing down our voice 
to offer amendments, and then the gentlemen from the other side of the 
aisle advocate closing down Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment 
for the Arts, and there is a narrow closing of voices in this country, 
and we will not be a part of it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Idaho Falls, ID [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let us understand what this debate is about. We have 
before us title II of a proposal that has over 25 major and important 
reforms and a motion to commit that will be coming that will say, Let's 
not consider these reforms tonight, reforms that will eliminate 
committees, reforms that will eliminate rolling quorums, make 
accountable votes in committees, and require automatic rollcall votes 
for spending money and raising taxes, and one which is especially 
important to our class--the freshman class of last year--and that is 
the discharge petition.
  What is the reason for saying, Let's not enact these reforms tonight? 
Because we have the gift ban proposal put forward that our Speaker 
today said we will address in this Congress. You cannot use the issue 
of saying we want to do it tonight, to dodge these important reforms. 
We will get to the gift ban, but tonight let us focus on the reforms 
that this House needs, that the people of this country want, and let us 
get on with the business of reforming this House.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, since 1800, the residents of Washington, DC, have been 
the only tax paying U.S. citizens denied equal representation in 
Congress, denying the residents of the District of Columbia to send 
Representatives to Congress who can vote on taxes or decide questions 
of war and peace.
  At the same time we expect them to shoulder the burdens of 
citizenship--including the obligation to pay taxes and to fight and die 
for their country in time of war, this is wrong.
  The District of Columbia has more residents than three States, 
Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont. Combined those three States have nine 
Representatives in Congress. The District of Columbia has only one 
nonvoting Member, that is unfair, unequal and not to mention 
unconscionable.
  I urge Members to reconsider their stand on this issue. How can we 
deny persons the right to fair representation, how can we provide for 
taxation without representation in the United States--and at the same 
time, in good faith, fight for democracy abroad?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thomas). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, all day the new majority has proposed a 
package of rules meant to symbolize a return of Government to the 
people. But there is one element of the rules package which flies in 
the face of democracy, which strengthens Federal control over the lives 
of citizens, which disempowers local Government and which makes this 
House less accessible to U.S. citizens, and that is the denial of the 
delegates their opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole.
  Those who argue that against the delegate vote forget the past 
struggles of breaking down barriers to participation on the basis of 
gender, race, poll taxes and land ownership.
  Now, as we confront the issue of fellow citizens who die like you for 
that flag, who serve like you for that flag and who remain spectators 
in this country's affairs, our history is conveniently forgotten. Those 
who would deny the participation of people from Guam, a place 
symbolized in the national consciousness in World War II as the only 
inhabited U.S. territory invaded and occupied since the war of 1812, 
which was the land from which much of American power has been extended 
into Asia and the Pacific during the cold war.
  Guam was one of the major bases used to fight the Vietnam war. But 
when the wars are over and we attempt to put into practice what we 
allegedly fought for, Guam and her people recede into the back reaches 
of our memory, only to be jarred when again we need their piece of 
property to fight another war, but never to share in the peace.
  We may lose this time in the fight over this important symbol, but we 
will be here constantly, reminding you of who we are until we jar your 
consciousness and bring the principles of 
[[Page H85]] this country into fruition wherever that flag flies.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Congressional Black 
Caucus, I rise in strong opposition to the provision in the rules 
package which will eliminate all legislative service organizations.
  Let's be honest--this attack on the caucuses and their right to exist 
is not motivated by any desire for reform. It will not save the public 
money.
  This change has one purpose, and one purpose only--to silence the 
voices of those who dare to question the status quo in this supposedly 
new and ``open'' House of Representatives.
  The elimination of the caucuses is an attempt to cut off the flow of 
information and ideas that the party now in power finds threatening.
  Despite their public lip service to bipartisanship, the Republicans 
showed true colors behind closed doors. Let me quote from the document 
they distributed in the Republican conference. They said it was 
important to cut out the caucuses because, and I quote, ``Eliminating 
the Legislative Service Organizations severely damages the power 
structure of the House Democrats.'' Is this bipartisanship?
  The Congressional Black Caucus and the other legislative service 
organizations have been run in an efficient, responsible manner. 
Members with similar concerns have been able to pool our resources to 
accomplish important goals in behalf of our constituencies. As all 
Members well know, the expenditures of legislative service 
organizations are carefully monitored by the House Finance Office.
  To ensure strict accountability, the General Accounting Office 
conducts audits of the legislative service organizations.
  So, again, this is not about reform. It is a blatant move to put a 
gag on minorities and others who may differ in opinion from the new 
majority party.
  But let me say this--you will not succeed in silencing us. We have 
been through many struggles throughout the course of history, but we 
have never been silenced. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the 
Congressional Black Caucus will continue to meet, to fight injustices, 
and to speak out passionately in behalf of those who have no power, who 
have no voice. We will continue to be the conscience of the Congress.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I regret this move by the new majority to 
obstruct the work of the Congressional Black Caucus and other 
organizations under the guise of ``reform.'' I hope that all fair-
minded people will see through this sham.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining and has indicated he has one speaker remaining. The gentleman 
is entitled to close.

                              {time}  2400

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to many of the elements 
of this package.
  While there are some admirable portions--for which I would vote if 
they stood alone--the package as a whole must be defeated!
  When we carefully examine what these rules will do, we discover they 
are not reforms at all, as has been promised, but steps that actually 
reduce our ability to serve the public and increase opportunities for 
purely partisan activity.
  Eliminating the Post Office and Civil Service Committee would be a 
disservice to the many retirees who have dedicated their lives in 
service to their country! I have received many letters and calls from 
seniors who are extremely concerned about this action.
  Eliminating the legislative service organizations will make it more 
difficult to get a fair hearing for any program or analysis that goes 
in a different direction from that of the new majority.
  In 1992, Congress went through a concerted effort in the aftermath of 
the House Post Office scandal to make the House administration a non-
partisan activity, reporting in a bipartisan manner to Congress. This 
was true reform. But the proposed rule would eliminate the nonpartisan 
Doorkeeper's Office--and open a backdoor to partisan manipulation.
  The new Speaker's Office is another attempt to consolidate power in a 
partisan manner--eliminating the progress that has been made in 
protecting the rights of both the minority and the majority and in 
fostering full debate of issues before this legislative body.
  In addition, this rule prevents some of our duly-elected 
Representatives from voting in the Committee of the Whole House, 
including the representative from Washington, DC--leaving the Capital's 
citizens with taxation without representation. Talk about moving 
backwards!
  We must preserve the rights of the majority and the minority. We must 
preserve the votes of all Representatives. We must be cautious about 
reform that ends up costing more money and decreasing our ability to 
truly debate ideas. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
package.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Atlanta, GA [Mr. Linder], a new member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address directly the question of 
stilling of voices, whether the Republican Party wants to still the 
voices, and the minority whip says we are stilling the black voices, 
the Hispanic voices, the women's voices and the Arts Caucus' voices, 
and I would like to suggest that it is precisely at the crux of a 
November 8 election. One tends to see America as groups of groups with 
groups' claims and society's assets, and we argue that America is 258 
million individual Americans, each with their own voice, each being 
heard at every opportunity.
  The last time we had a party in this country that saw America as a 
collection of groups with group claims and assets was in 1832, and 1856 
and 1860. They were organized around opposition to another idea. They 
did not have a single organizing principle of their own. It was the 
Whig Party, and they died.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to just respond 
briefly to that.
  Mr. Speaker, we are 209 Members strong, representing every part of 
this great country and representing every constituency in this great 
country of ours in our Democratic Party. We have been silenced tonight, 
all of us and the people that we represent, from offering any amendment 
on the bills that are pending before us tonight.
  We are not a narrow group of people. We do not represent a narrow 
interest of people. We represent a broad spectrum of the American 
public, and they have shut us out this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I think, yes, in some ways today is 
historic. My colleagues, the most historic thing about today is the 
fact that on the very first day of the Republican majority eight 
significant changes were debated on the floor, and not a single 
amendment was allowed. We were totally shut out of the process, and it 
is not that these were the most earth shattering of debates of rules.
  I have to say that when I go into O'Halleran's Pub and speak, to the 
fellows, Mr. Speaker, they do not say, ``Hey, Charlie, make sure you go 
to baseline budgeting,'' or, ``Get rid of proxy voting.'' These are 
internal issues that affect only ourselves, and they are not going to 
make the lives of our constituents better. They are a debate as to how 
to run the House.
  Where could it be more appropriate than to allow that debate to be 
open and free and to allow alternative proposals as they so suggest 
that they want to do than on this kind of debate? The fact that we have 
not been allowed to debate these issues and amend these issues openly 
does not speak well for the future openness of how this House will be 
run.

[[Page H86]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thomas). All time has expired on the 
minority side.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the speaker tell me if it is his 
ruling that it is still Wednesday? I just want to know what day it is. 
I was told we have to this on the first day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that that is not a parliamentary inquiry. The Chair 
recognized him for a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, when we began this day debating the rule I 
said, as I yielded time to my colleagues, that we were considering 
these measures under the most open procedure that has ever been used 
for a first day of any session of Congress in our Nation's history.
  Now I have been listening to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle talk over the last several hours about this process being closed, 
preventing them from the chance to offer amendments. I cannot help but 
think about the task that I was given in January 1993 along with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and several others, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], former Senator David Boren, Senator Pete 
Domenici, to put together the first bipartisan bicameral effort in 
nearly half a century to reform this institution, and I was very 
optimistic 2 years ago today believing that the leadership in this 
House would in fact bring the measures that we have been passing by 
overwhelming margins with bipartisan support over the past several 
hours to the floor. Time and time again they made those commitments to 
me. They said we would do it, and what happened? Absolutely nothing.
  I look at my good friend, the gentleman from Indian [Mr. Hamilton], 
there with whom I served, and he knows very well that, as he went to 
members of his leadership, unfortunately his effort to bring about a 
bipartisan package of reform was denied by them, and I believe there 
are many other Democrat Members who wanted to have it done, but 
unfortunately the leadership did not allow it.
  And what has happened here tonight? We have listened to people talk 
about how this process is closed, preventing Members from having the 
opportunity to amend it. Well, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] just reminded me, throughout the hours and hours that we had 
and the efforts of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 
we took input from Democrat and Republican Members. We have got a 
chance to implement 23 of those, Mr. Speaker. We should do it right 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] rise?
                 motion to commit offered by mr. bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. BONIOR. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonior moves to commit the resolution H. Res. 6 to a 
     select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same to 
     the House forthwith with only the following amendment:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:

                        Term Limits for Speaker

       Sec. 224. Clause 7(b) of rule I of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives is amended by striking out ``four'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``three''.

                  Equitable Party Ratios on Committees

       Sec. 225. (a) In rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, clause 6(a) is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new subparagraph:
       ``(3) The membership of each committee (and each 
     subcommittee, task force, or other subunit thereof) shall 
     reflect the ratio of majority to minority party Members of 
     the House at the beginning of the Congress (unless otherwise 
     provided by House Rules). For the purposes of this clause, 
     the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the Delegates 
     to the House shall not be counted in determining the party 
     ratio of the House.''.
       (b) In rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
     clause 6(f) is amended by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following: ``The membership of each such select committee 
     (and of any subcommittee, task force or subunit thereof), and 
     of each such conference committee, shall reflect the ratio of 
     the majority to minority party Members of the House at the 
     time of its appointment.''.

                Majority-Minority Committee Staff Ratios

       Sec. 226. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 
     not less than one-third of (the staff funding made available 
     to each standing, select, special, ad hoc, or other committee 
     of the House of Representatives shall be allocated to the 
     minority party.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct.
                        Budget Waiver Limitation

       Sec. 227. Clause 4(e) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``(e)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``(e)(1)'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) It shall be in order after the previous question has 
     been ordered on any such resolution, to offer motions 
     proposing to strike one or more such waivers from the 
     resolution, and each such motion shall be decided without 
     debate and shall require for adoption the requisite number of 
     affirmative votes as required by the Budget Act or the rules 
     of the House. After disposition of any and all such motions, 
     the House shall proceed to an immediate vote on adoption of 
     the resolution.''.

                      Ban on Gifts From Lobbyists

       Sec. 228. Clause 4 of rule XLIII of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
       ``4. (a)(1) No Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives shall accept a gift, knowing that such gift 
     is provided directly or indirectly by a paid lobbyist, a 
     lobbying firm (a person or entity that has 1 or more 
     employees who are lobbyists on behalf of a client other than 
     that person or entity), or an agent of a foreign principal 
     (as defined in the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938).
       ``(2) The prohibition in subparagraph (1) includes the 
     following:
       ``(A) Anything provided by a lobbyist or a foreign agent 
     which the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe 
     is paid for, charged to, or reimbursed by a client or firm of 
     such lobbyist or foreign agent.
       ``(B) Anything provided by a lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or 
     a foreign agent to an entity that is maintained or controlled 
     by a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(C) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent on the basis of 
     a designation, recommendation, or other specification of a 
     Member, officer, or employee (not including a mass mailing or 
     other solicitation directed to a broad category of persons or 
     entities).
       ``(D) A contribution or other payment by a lobbyist, a 
     lobbying firm, or a foreign agent to a legal expense fund 
     established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or 
     employee.
       ``(E) A charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made by a 
     lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent in lieu of an 
     honorarium to a Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(F) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a 
     lobbyist, a lobbying firm, or a foreign agent relating to a 
     conference, retreat, or similar event, sponsored by or 
     affiliated with an official congressional organization, for 
     or on behalf of Members, officers, or employees.
       ``(3) The following are not gifts subject to the 
     prohibition in subparagraph (1):
       ``(A) Anything for which the recipient pays the market 
     value, or does not use and promptly returns to the donor.
       ``(B) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully 
     made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event 
     sponsored by a
      political organization described in section 527(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(C) Food or refreshments of nominal value offered other 
     than as part of a meal.
       ``(D) Benefits resulting from the business, employment, or 
     other outside activities of the spouse of a Member, officer, 
     or employee, if such benefits are customarily provided to 
     others in similar circumstances.
       ``(E) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(F) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of a Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes, 
     [[Page H87]] videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(4)(A) A gift given by an individual under circumstances 
     which make it clear the gift is given for a nonbusiness 
     purpose and is motivated by a family relationship or close 
     personal friendship and not the position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee shall not be subject to the prohibition 
     in subparagraph (1).
       ``(B) A gift shall not be considered to be given for a 
     nonbusiness purpose if the Member, officer, or employee has 
     reason to believe the individual giving the gift will seek--
       ``(i) to deduct the value of such gift as a business 
     expense on the individual's Federal income tax return, or
       ``(ii) direct or indirect reimbursement or any other 
     compensation for the value of the gift from a client or 
     employer of such lobbyist or foreign agent.
       ``(C) In determining if the giving of a gift is motivated 
     by a family relationship or close personal friendship, at 
     least the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(i) The history of the relationship between the 
     individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift, 
     including whether or not gifts have previously been exchanged 
     by such individuals.
       ``(ii) Whether the Member, officer, or employee has reason 
     to believe the gift was purchased by the individual who gave 
     the item.
       ``(iii) Whether the Member, officer, or employee has reason 
     to believe the individual who gave the gift also at the same 
     time gave the same or similar gifts to other Members, 
     officers, or employees.
       ``(b) In addition to the restriction on receiving gifts 
     from paid lobbyists, lobbying firms, and agents of foreign 
     principals provided by paragraph (a) and except as provided 
     in this Rule, no Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives shall knowingly accept a gift from any other 
     person.
       ``(c)(1) For the purpose of this clause, the term `gift' 
     means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, 
     hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary 
     value. The term includes gifts of services, training, 
     transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, 
     by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement 
     after the expense has been incurred.
       ``(2) A gift to the spouse or dependent of a Member, 
     officer, or employee (or a gift to any other individual based 
     on that individual's relationship with the Member, officer, 
     or employee) shall be considered a gift to the Member, 
     officer, or employee if it is given with the knowledge and 
     acquiescence of the Member, officer, or employee and the 
     Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe the gift 
     was given because of the official position of the Member, 
     officer, or employee.
       ``(d) The restrictions in paragraph (b) shall not apply to 
     the following:
       ``(1) Anything for which the Member, officer, or employee 
     pays the market value, or does not use and promptly returns 
     to the donor.
       ``(2) A contribution, as defined in the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) that is lawfully 
     made under that Act, or attendance at a fundraising event 
     sponsored by a political organization described in section 
     527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) Anything provided by an individual on the basis of a 
     personal or family relationship unless the Member, officer, 
     or employee has reason to believe that, under the 
     circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official 
     position of the Member, officer, or employee and not because 
     of the personal or family relationship. The Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct shall provide guidance on the 
     applicability of this clause and examples of circumstances 
     under which a gift may be accepted under this exception.
       ``(4) A contribution or other payment to a legal expense 
     fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or 
     employee, that is otherwise lawfully made, if the person 
     making the contribution or payment is identified for the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
       ``(5) Any food or refreshments which the recipient 
     reasonably believes to have a value of less than $20.
       ``(6) Any gift from another Member, officer, or employee of 
     the Senate or the House of Representatives.
       ``(7) Food, refreshments, lodging, and other benefits--
       ``(A) resulting from the outside business or employment 
     activities (or other outside activities that are not 
     connected to the duties of the Member, officer, or employee 
     as an officeholder) of the Member, officer, or employee, or 
     the spouse of the Member, officer, or employee, if such 
     benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the 
     official position of the Member, officer, or employee and are 
     customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
       ``(B) customarily provided by a prospective employer in 
     connection with bona fide employment discussions; or
       ``(C) provided by a political organization described in 
     section 527(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 
     connection with a fund-raising or campaign event sponsored by 
     such an organization.
       ``(8) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued 
     participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan 
     maintained by a former employer.
       ``(9) Informational materials that are sent to the office 
     of the Member, officer, or employee in the form of books, 
     articles, periodicals, other written materials, audio tapes, 
     videotapes, or other forms of communication.
       ``(10) Awards or prizes which are given to competitors in 
     contests or events open to the public, including random 
     drawings.
       ``(11) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food, 
     refreshments, and entertainment) and other bona fide, 
     nonmonetary awards presented in recognition of public service 
     (and associated food, refreshments, and entertainment 
     provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).
       ``(12) Donations of products from the State that the Member 
     represents that are intended primarily for promotional 
     purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of 
     minimal value to any individual recipient.
       ``(13) Food, refreshments, and entertainment provided to a 
     Member or an employee of a Member in the Member's home State, 
     subject to reasonable limitations, to be established by the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
       ``(14) An item of little intrinsic value such as a greeting 
     card, baseball cap, or a T shirt.
       ``(15) Training (including food and refreshments furnished 
     to all attendees as an integral part of the training) 
     provided to a Member, officer, or employee, if such training 
     is in the interest of the House of Representatives.
       ``(16) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at 
     death.
       ``(17) Any item, the receipt of which is authorized by the 
     Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute.
       ``(18) Anything which is paid for by the Federal 
     Government, by a State or local government, or secured by the 
     Government under a Government contract.
       ``(19) A gift of personal hospitality of an individual, as 
     defined in section 109(14) of the Ethics in Government Act.
       ``(20) Free attendance at a widely attended event permitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (e).
       ``(21) Opportunities and benefits which are--
       ``(A) available to the public or to a class consisting of 
     all Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis 
     of geographic consideration;
       ``(B) offered to members of a group or class in which 
     membership is unrelated to congressional employment;
       ``(C) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
     employees' association or congressional credit union, in 
     which membership is related to congressional employment and 
     similar opportunities are available to large segments of the 
     public through organizations of similar size;
       ``(D) offered to any group or class that is not defined in 
     a manner that specifically discriminates among Government 
     employees on the basis of branch of Government or type of 
     responsibility, or on a basis that favors those of higher 
     rank or rate of pay;
       ``(E) in the form of loans from banks and other financial 
     institutions on terms generally available to the public; or
       ``(F) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
     participation in organization activities offered to all 
     Government employees by professional organizations if the 
     only restrictions on membership relate to professional 
     qualifications.
       ``(22) A plaque, trophy, or other momento of modest value.
       ``(23) Anything for which, in exceptional circumstances, a 
     waiver is granted by the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct.
       ``(e)(1) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a Member, 
     officer, or employee may accept an offer of free attendance 
     at a widely attended convention, conference, symposium, 
     forum, panel discussion, dinner, viewing, reception, or 
     similar event, provided by the sponsor of the event, if--
       ``(A) the Member, officer, or employee participates in the 
     event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(B) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in subparagraph (1) may accept a sponsor's 
     unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for an 
     accompanying individual if others in attendance will 
     generally be similarly accompanied or if such attendance is 
     appropriate to assist in the representation of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(3) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a Member, 
     officer, or employee, or the spouse or dependent thereof, may 
     accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at a 
     charity event, except that reimbursement for transportation 
     and lodging may not be accepted in connection with the event.
       ``(4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' may include waiver of all or part of a conference 
     or other fee, the provision of local transportation, or the 
     provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, and 
     instructional materials furnished to all attendees as an 
     integral part of the event. The term does not include 
     entertainment collateral to the event, or food or 
     refreshments taken other than in a group setting with all or 
     substantially all other attendees.
       ``(f) No Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift the 
     value of which exceeds $250 
     [[Page H88]] on the basis of the personal relationship 
     exception in paragraph (d)(3) or the close personal 
     friendship exception in section 106(d) of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 unless the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct issues a written determination that one of 
     such exceptions applies.
       ``(g)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
     authorized to adjust the dollar amount referred to in 
     paragraph (d)(5) on a periodic basis, to the extent necessary 
     to adjust for inflation.
       ``(2) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
     provide guidance setting forth reasonable steps that may be 
     taken by Members, officers, and employees, with a minimum of 
     paperwork and time, to prevent the acceptance of prohibited 
     gifts from lobbyists.
       ``(3) When it is not practicable to return a tangible item 
     because it is perishable, the item may, at the discretion of 
     the recipient, be given to an appropriate charity or 
     destroyed.
       ``(h)(1)(A) Except as prohibited by paragraph (a), a 
     reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a Member, 
     officer, or employee for necessary transportation, lodging 
     and related expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking 
     engagement, factfinding trip or similar event in connection 
     with the duties of the Member, officer, or employee as an 
     officeholder shall be deemed to be a reimbursement to the 
     House of Representatives and not a gift prohibited by this 
     paragraph, if the Member, officer, or employee--
       ``(i) in the case of an employee, receives advance 
     authorization, from the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works, to accept reimbursement, and
       ``(ii) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed and the authorization to the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives within 30 days after the travel is completed.
       ``(B) For purposes of clause (A), events, the activities of 
     which are substantially recreational in nature, shall not be 
     considered to be in connection with the duties of a Member, 
     officer, or employee as an officeholder.
       ``(2) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement 
     shall be signed by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works and shall include--
       ``(A) the name of the employee;
       ``(B) the name of the person who will make the 
     reimbursement;
       ``(C) the time, place, and purpose of the travel; and
       ``(D) a determination that the travel is in connection with 
     the duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not 
     create the appearance that the employee is using public 
     office for private gain.
       ``(3) Each disclosure made under subparagraph (1)(A) of 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed shall be signed by 
     the Member or officer (in the case of travel by the Member or 
     officer) or by the Member or officer under whose direct 
     supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an 
     employee) and shall include--
       ``(A) a good faith estimate of total transportation 
     expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(B) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(C) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(D) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses 
     reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
       ``(E) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
     transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(F) in the case of a reimbursement to a Member or 
     officer, a determination that the travel was in connection 
     with the duties of the Member or officer as an officeholder 
     and would not create the appearance that the Member or 
     officer is using public office for private gain.
       ``(4) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term 
     `necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses'--
       ``(A) includes reasonable expenses that are necessary for 
     travel--
       ``(i) for a period not exceeding 4 days including travel 
     time within the United States or 7 days in addition to travel 
     time outside the United States; and
       ``(ii) within 24 hours before or after participation in an 
     event in the United States or within 48 hours before or after 
     participation in an event outside the United States,

     unless approved in advance by the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct;
       ``(B) is limited to reasonable expenditures for 
     transportation, lodging, conference fees and materials, and 
     food and refreshments, including reimbursement for necessary 
     transportation, whether or not such transportation occurs 
     within the periods described in clause (A);
       ``(C) does not include expenditures for recreational 
     activities or entertainment other than that provided to all 
     attendees as an integral part of the event; and
       ``(D) may include travel expenses incurred on behalf of 
     either the spouse or a child of the Member, officer, or 
     employee, subject to a determination signed by the Member or 
     officer (or in the case of an employee, the Member or officer 
     under whose direct supervision the officer or employee works) 
     that the attendance of the spouse or child is appropriate to 
     assist in the representation of the House of Representatives.
       ``(5) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make 
     available to the public all advance authorizations and 
     disclosures of reimbursement filed pursuant to subparagraph 
     (1) as soon as possible after they are received.''.
                      Limitation on Royalty Income

       Sec. 229. (a) Clause 3 of rule XLVII of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(g) In calendar year 1995 or thereafter, a Member, 
     officer, or employee of the House may not--
       ``(1) receive any copyright royalties for any work--
       ``(A) unless the royalty is received from an established 
     publisher pursuant to usual and customary contractual terms;
       ``(B) unless the total amount of such royalties for that 
     work does not exceed one-third of that individual's annual 
     pay as a Member, officer, or employee for the year in which 
     the contract is entered into; and
       ``(C) without the prior notification and approval of the 
     contract for that work by the Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct; or
       ``(2) receive any advance payment for any such work.''.
       (b) Clause 3(e)(5) of rule XLVII of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) copyright royalties.''.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply only to 
     copyright royalties received by any Member, officer, or 
     employee of the House after the adoption of this resolution, 
     pursuant to any contract entered into while that individual 
     is such a Member, officer, or employee.

   Amendment to the Rules to Create The Position of Director of Non-
                   legislative and Financial Services

       Sec. 230. The Rules of the House of Representatives are 
     amended by adding at the end the following new rule:

                              ``Rule LIII


          ``DIRECTOR OF NON-LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

       ``1. The Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services 
     shall be appointed for a Congress by the Speaker, the 
     majority leader, and the minority leader, acting jointly. The 
     Director may be removed by the House or by the Speaker. The 
     Director shall be paid at the same rate of basic pay as the 
     elected officers of the House.
       ``2. The Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services 
     shall have extensive managerial and financial experience.
       ``3. Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the 
     Committee on House Oversight, the Director shall have 
     operational and financial responsibility for functions 
     assigned by resolution of the House.
       ``4. Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the 
     Committee on House Oversight, the Director shall develop 
     employment standards that provide that all employment 
     decisions for functions under the Director's supervision be 
     made in accordance with the non-discrimination provisions of 
     clause 9 of rule XLIII and of rule LI, without regard to 
     political affiliation, and solely on the basis of fitness to 
     perform the duties involved. No adverse personnel action may 
     be taken by the Director without cause.''.

Transfer of Functions to the Director of Non-legislative and Financial 
                               Services.

       Sec. 231. As soon as practicable, but not later than the 
     ninetieth day beginning after the date of adoption of this 
     resolution, the functions and entities specified in 
     subsection (d) shall be transferred to the Director of Non-
     legislative and Financial Services.
       (b) The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority 
     to prescribe regulations providing for--
       (1) the orderly transfer of the functions and entities 
     specified in subsection (d); and
       (2) such additional transfers of functions and entities 
     specified in subsection (d) with respect to the Clerk, the 
     Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Director as may be necessary for 
     the improvement of non-legislative and financial services in 
     the House.
       (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), functions and 
     entities within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
     Oversight under rule X may not be transferred to the 
     Director.
       (d) The functions and entities referred to in subsection 
     (a) are: Office of Employee Assistance, Finance Office, pay 
     and mileage of Members, House Information Systems, Office 
     Furnishings, Office Supply Service, Office Systems 
     Management, Placement Office, Special Services Office, 
     Telecommunications, Telephone Exchange, Typewriter Repair, 
     Barber Shop, Beauty Shop, House Restaurant System, Office of 
     Photography, Inside Mail and Internal Mail Operations 
     (including coordination with postal substations to be 
     operated by the United States Postal Service), Guide Service, 
     and Child Care Center, and the non-legislative functions of 
     the Printing Services, Recording Studio, and Records and 
     Registration.

    Open Rule for Consideration of Congressional Accountability Act

       Sec. 232. (a) Section 108 of this resolution shall have no 
     force or effect.
       (b) 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 
     [[Page H89]] House on the State of the Union for 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to apply certain laws to 
     the Congress. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the Majority and Minority Leaders. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to commit with or without 
     instructions.
  Mr. DREIER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk continued the reading of the motion to commit.
  Mr. BONIOR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that my motion to commit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, the new majority in the House of 
Representatives have put forward a number of suggestions for reform 
here in the Congress.
  Some of these proposals have merit, some do not.
  But I believe that one of the most damaging, and fiscally 
questionable, is the proposal to eliminate Legislative Service 
Organizations here in the House.
  Some Members on the other side of the aisle have suggested that 
elimination of LSO's will save money. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  LSO's have given Members of this body, both Republicans and 
Democrats, the ability to combine their resources to more efficiently 
pursue policies they would have pursued anyway.
  Eliminating LSO's will not mean that Members of these caucuses will 
stop working on these issues. Far from it.
  As an associate member of both the Congressional Black and Hispanic 
Caucuses, I can assure my colleagues that the work of these caucuses 
will not stop.
  As chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, which 
had hoped to organize as an LSO and will now be prevented from doing 
so, I can assure my colleagues that our work will continue as well.
  If that work requires that each caucus member duplicate within his or 
her individual office the work that could be done more efficiently and 
at a lower cost by one person working for an LSO, then so be it.
  The moral imperative that each of us feels to ensure that all 
Americans are represented in this House will not be changed. The iron-
clad commitment we have made to effectively providing that 
representation will not waiver.
  And despite this effort to diminish the voices of African American, 
Hispanic American, Asian Pacific American and women Representatives in 
the Congress, our work will continue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of 
rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 227, not voting 5, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 14]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lambert-Lincoln
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (FL)
     Cunningham
     Rangel
     Stark
     Yates
                       [[Page H90]] {time}  0023

  Mr. FAWELL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BROWN of California, SAWYER, and TOWNS changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thomas). The question is on Title II of 
the resolution.
  Title II of the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________