[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H605-H619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 17, 
    TREATMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY UNDER ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 
 REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE 
   JOINT RESOLUTION 1, PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE 
                              CONSTITUTION

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 44 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 44

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 17) relating to the 
     treatment of Social Security under any constitutional 
     amendment requiring a balanced budget, if called up by the 
     majority leader or his designee. The concurrent resolution 
     shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. At any time after the disposition of the concurrent 
     resolution made in order by the first section of this 
     resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced 
     budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
     The first reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the joint 
     resolution for failure to comply with 
     [[Page H606]] clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall 
     not exceed three hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the joint resolution shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Barton of Texas and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment while pending. No further amendment shall be in 
     order except those designated in section 3 of this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     designated, may be offered only by the named proponent or a 
     designee, may be considered notwithstanding the adoption of a 
     previous amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. If more than one amendment 
     is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of 
     affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In 
     the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative 
     votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of 
     affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted, 
     except that if the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary is one of the 
     amendments receiving the greater number of votes then it 
     shall be the amendment considered as finally adopted. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the joint resolution for 
     amendment the Committee shall
      rise and report the joint resolution to the House with such 
     amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3. The further amendments that may be offered after 
     disposition of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary are those 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII with the following 
     designations: (a) the amendment numbered 4 by Representative 
     Owens of New York; (b) the amendment numbered 1 by 
     Representative Wise of West Virginia; (c) the amendment 
     numbered 25 by Representative Conyers of Michigan; (d) the 
     amendment numbered 29 by Representative Gephardt of Missouri; 
     and (e) the amendment numbered 39 by Representative Schaefer 
     of Colorado.

                              {time}  1240

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and 
include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, today we begin consideration of what may 
well be the most important matter this Congress will consider over the 
next 2 years, a balanced budget constitutional amendment. In order to 
make it perfectly clear right up front that the budget is not to be 
balanced by cutting Social Security, this rule first makes in order a 
resolution designed to protect Social Security.
  The concurrent resolution directs the committees which will be 
proposing legislation to implement the requirement for a balanced 
budget to leave Social Security alone.
  The concurrent resolution will be debated for 1 hour, and then the 
House will vote on that issue.
  Next, the rule provides the most open and the most fair process that 
has ever been used by this House to consider a balanced budget 
amendment.
  The record shows that very clearly.
  The rule provides 3 hours of general debate on the balanced budget 
amendment. After general debate, the rule provides first for a vote on 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is the 
Barton version of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. It the 
version which includes the requirement for a three-fifths' vote to 
increase tax revenues; it is this version that I strongly support.
  We need to balance the budget, but we need to do it without making it 
easy to raise taxes. That really is what this debate is all about. 
After the vote on the committee substitute, there will then be votes on 
the five additional substitutes, four of which are to be offered by the 
Democrats.
  This process is much more fair to the minority than at any other time 
the House has considered a balanced budget amendment. Each of the six 
substitutes will be debated for 1 hour, with a separate vote taken on 
each one. And the one that receives the most votes is the version that 
will be put to a final vote; that is, requiring a two-thirds majority, 
or 290 votes, to pass.
  Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit, which will give the 
minority one final chance to offer any amendment which complies with 
the standing rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the numbers of the national debt in this Nation have 
grown so large that they have become difficult for most of us to really 
comprehend, even those here, those of us who deal with it every day,
 much less the American people.

  Madam Speaker, the Federal debt has tripled during the last 10 fiscal 
years to almost $5 trillion in accumulated debt.
  How much debt is that? It is just almost incomprehensible. It is a 
thousand billion dollars, not a thousand million dollars but a thousand 
billion dollars five times over. That is how much the accumulated debt 
is in this country.
  The interest alone is projected at $235 billion for the current 
fiscal year. That is almost as much as we spend on the national defense 
of this country, which is the primary reason we formed this Republic of 
States in the first place, to provide for a common defense.
  Here we are spending just on the interest alone $235 billion this 
year. And if interest rates rise, heaven help us. But even if they do 
not, in just 4 or 5 years the interest we pay out annually to foreign 
countries, like the Netherlands and Great Britain and other countries 
that hold our national debt, the interest will rise to $400 billion a 
year. What are we going to do to help people who are truly in need 
then, when all the money is going out either for national defense or 
just to pay the interest on the annual debt service?
  Madam Speaker and Members, the deficit for this year is projected at 
$176 billion, and that is underestimated. Next year it is projected to 
rise to $207 billion, and that is underestimated. And by the year 2000 
it is projected to be almost $300 billion unless we do something about 
it. That is in spite of that huge tax increase in 1990 under President 
Bush and that huge tax increase in 1992 under President Clinton. We are 
still running debts annually of $300 billion. What is going on around 
here?
  Madam Speaker, the first step we can take is enacting a real balanced 
budget amendment.
  Now, you have heard these 1-minute speeches here today. The opponents 
of these constitutional amendments will say that amendments are not 
necessary because Congress can control the problem any time it wants. 
That is a true statement.
  Well, let me just tell you this: In the last Congress I offered an 
alternative, and here it is right here. I offered an alternative budget 
resolution which would have reduced the deficit to zero in just 5 
years, and listen to this: Without raising taxes, without cutting 
Social Security, and without cutting contractual obligations to our 
veterans.
  We balanced the budget and are left with an $8 billion surplus at the 
end of 5 years. Let me tell you something: That budget provided for 
tough spending cuts. It included language saying if Congress did not 
like the specific spending cuts that are in there--and they are 
specific and scored by the Congressional Budget Office--Congress could 
do whatever it wanted. Congress could always substitute those cuts for 
others. That is what we are going to have to be doing after we enact 
this constitutional amendment.
  But was that adopted? No, this budget was not passed, not on your 
life. It only got 73 votes; 55 or 56 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
  Madam Speaker and Members, we have come to a point where those of us 
who care about our children and care about our grandchildren--and I 
have 4 grandchildren, along with 5 children--we are going to have to 
take a very serious step to put an end to the irresponsible deficit 
spending that we have been talking about here this morning 
[[Page H607]] and which is drowning this country in a sea of red ink. 
And it is totally, totally irresponsible. A balanced budget amendment 
will do just that.
  Madam Speaker and Members, no one proposes that such a solution be 
taken lightly. The problem requires drastic action, and the time is 
now, it is right now today. The longer we wait the deeper in debt this 
Nation will be and the more difficult it will be to get out of it. It 
is almost too late now.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has repeatedly shown that it is not prepared 
to deal responsibly with the problems without some kind of a prod. The 
enactment of a balanced budget amendment will help to give Congress--
and this is the point--it will help to give Congress that prod, that 
spine, that backbone and, for some who need it, the excuse to do what 
the American people have to do, and that is to live within our means.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' for this rule and then for the American 
people, please vote for the balanced budget amendment. Let us give it 
to the people to let them ratify it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very closed rule.
  Madam Speaker, I am hearing a lot of double talk these days, 
especially around the word ``open.'' When my Republican colleagues were 
in the minority, they said that nearly every rule we granted was 
closed, including rules that provided for time caps and required 
amendments to be printed in the Record. But now that they are in the 
majority, Republican Members have changed the meaning of the word 
``open'' 180 degrees.
  Now a rule that cuts off debate, restricts amendments and refuses to 
allow Members to work together as the President urged us last night is 
not just called an open rule but a most open rule. I do not know what 
that means.
  Madam Speaker, Republican flipflops are enough to give a weather vane 
whiplash.
  I have heard my colleagues compare this rule to other balanced budget 
rules, but what they do not tell you and they do not tell the American 
people is that every one of the balanced budget rules is the result of 
either a discharge petition or reported to preempt discharge, and 
closely imitated the discharge rule.
  What they do not say is that I opposed those rules too because they 
were too restrictive. Check the record.
  The last time the discharge rule allowed only the amendments that 
were made in order the Congress before, I led the opposition because I 
knew that new Members and other people had new ideas on the topic and 
were being stifled. Unlike my Republican colleagues, my position has 
been consistent.
  Madam Speaker, the Republicans would have us believe that 
constitutional amendments must be considered under a gag rule, that 
they always are considered under a gag rule. I would like to take this 
opportunity to say to the American people that this is not true.

                              {time}  1250

  In fact, constitutional amendments are usually considered in the 
Committee of the Whole under an open rule. This tradition, Madam 
Speaker, began in the very first session of the First Congress when the 
Bill of Rights was considered. People offered amendments, including 
perfecting amendments. Some were accepted, some were rejected, and none 
of them were printed in advance in the Record. If an open rule worked 
for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Madam Speaker, if 
an open rule worked for our Founding Fathers, it should work for us 
here today with the balanced budget amendment.
  Over the past 30 years, Madam Speaker, every single rule reported 
from the Committee on Rules on a constitutional amendment has been an 
open rule except those that arrived as a result of a discharge petition 
or rules designed to preempt discharge. I am talking about rules for 
amendments dealing with Presidential succession, direct election of the 
President, granting the vote for 18-year-olds, the Equal Rights 
Amendment, D.C. congressional representation, and let me repeat, Madam 
Speaker:
  Every one of those rules were open.
  But today things have changed. I ask my colleagues to look at what 
has been excluded by what the Republicans call a most open rule. Look 
at the new ideas denied debate:
  A bipartisan substitute on unfunded mandates; a substitute offered by 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] protecting civil rights 
legislation; a substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] excluding Social Security and allowing Congress to waive the 
requirements in case of a recession; a substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] excluding capital investments 
providing long-term economic returns; a substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] on judicial review; a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] requiring a 
three-fifths vote to reduce funding for low income health, education 
and employment programs; an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] on natural disasters; amendments offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] clarifying the phrase 
``increasing tax revenues; an idea offered by the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton] to use sequestration to bring us back to balance.
  Madam Speaker, the list goes on, and on, and on.
  Let me tell my colleagues all is not lost. There is a chance really 
to fix this rule. If we defeat the previous question, I will then offer 
a germane amendment to the rule that will be an open rule and will give 
us an opportunity to consider a truth-in-budgeting perfecting 
amendment.
  In closing I urge all my Members to vote no on the previous question 
and then vote yes on the amendment to consider balanced budget under an 
open rule and to allow the truth-in-budgeting perfecting amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] my good friend.
  As my good friend knows, A Democrat Member on his side of the aisle 
had a balanced budget amendment pending before our Committee on Rules 
in both the 102d and 103d Congresses, and our committee deliberately 
stalled it and never let it come to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very fine 
gentleman from Kingsport, TN [Mr. Quillen], the chairman emeritus of 
the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Madam Speaker, in my 32 years here in this House, I have 
always tried to be helpful in passing a constitutional budget 
amendment. I think it is absolutely necessary that we act today 
favorably, and that we pass this constitutional amendment without any 
delay. The people of this Nation demand it, the majority of this House 
demands it, and I think the majority of the States will ratify it, not 
only the majority in total, but the majority required. Some of the 50 
States today have some kind of a balanced budget amendment, meaning 
that they cannot spend any more than they take in.
  Madam Speaker, Tennessee is a good example of that. We have had it 
for years, and it works. The Federal Government should have it, and it 
will work. We should give it a try, and today is the day that we are 
going to do just that.
  I commend the members of the Committee on Rules in the majority for 
bringing this to the floor of the House, and I know that these 
amendments, which will be discussed in full, embrace all of the ideas 
that were introduced that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] alluded to. I know that we will have an opportunity to discuss 
those issues, and in the end I certainly hope that this House will act 
responsibly and favorably and pass this constitutional budget amendment 
without delay.
  [[Page H608]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip of the Democrat 
Party.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], my friend, for yielding this time to me, and I thank my 
colleagues on the Committee on Rules and on the other side of the aisle 
for the good work they have done so far this year.
  Madam Speaker, the American people have a right to know how we are 
going to balance the budget, and they are not going to be fooled by fig 
leaves. They are not going to be distracted by simple solutions. As my 
colleagues know, in a poll that was released just yesterday, 86 percent 
of the American people said that Republicans should specify what they 
intend to cut before passing a balanced budget amendment, and in the 
President's State of the Union Address that night one idea that went 
off the charts was the idea that we should be honest with the American 
people and spell out exactly what is going to be cut to balance the 
budget.
  I say to my colleagues:
  ``Now the question isn't whether or not you support a balanced 
budget. The question is, and always has been, how do you intend to get 
there?''
  Now balancing the budget is going to require a mammoth cut totaling 
over $1.2 trillion. This will affect every man, every woman, every 
child in this country for years to come. The American people have a 
right to know:
  ``How are you going to get there?''
  ``How much are you going to cut from Social Security?''
  ``How much are you going to cut from Medicare?''
  ``How much are you going to cut from student loans?''
  ``How much are you going to cut from veterans' benefits?''
  Madam Speaker, the American people want to know.
  My friend, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
just went like this, and we are not going to cut anything. But then he 
offered a substitute on the budget just last year, let me tell my 
colleagues what he did cut:
  He wanted to eliminate all ag subsidies except for dairy, he wanted 
50 percent cut in job training, and he had $140 billion over 5 years 
cut in Medicare. I say to the gentleman, ``We need to know what you're 
about doing with this balanced budget amendment.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I will when I finish with my statement.
  Now, Republicans say it is unreasonable, unreasonable to ask us where 
these cuts are going to come from. Madam Speaker, I guess I was brought 
up under a different set of rules. I was taught if I were going to do 
something, I ought to have the guts to say how I am going to do it.
  I say to my colleagues, ``It's cowardly to say that you're for a 
balanced budget and then to leave it to future Congresses to figure out 
how that budget is going to be reached. It's like something a retired 
auto worker in my district once told me. He said, `Think about this in 
common sense terms.' He said, `I wouldn't sign a mortgage without first 
knowing how much the monthly payments are going to be. I wouldn't like 
a mechanic to do major work on my car without first getting an estimate 
on what the repair bill is going to be.' So he said, `I don't see why 
it's so unreasonable to say that before we have a constitutional 
amendment to require a balanced budget, we first have some idea how 
that budget will be balanced.'''
  Madam Speaker, I know the majority leader says that, if the American 
people saw the details, that our knees would buckle. Well, I say to my 
colleagues, ``I would guess that, if your bank gave an estimate on your 
monthly mortgage payments that would cause your knees to buckle, you 
might think twice about buying that home.''
  We all know what is going on here. We all know why knees would 
buckle. My colleagues do not want to come clean with the American 
people because they do not want them to know the truth, and the truth 
is they are going to slash Social Security, they are going to slash 
Medicare, they are going to slash veterans' benefits, they are going to 
pick the pockets of our seniors and balance the budget on the backs of 
senior citizens and children because that is what the Republicans have 
done traditionally, and if that is not true, if I am wrong, then show 
us it is not true. I say to my colleagues, ``Show us your hand. Show us 
how you intend to balance the budget.''
  Each and every one of these substitutes that we have before us today 
and tomorrow should be forced to reveal exactly what cuts they intend 
to make to balance the budget.

                              {time}  1300

  Madam Speaker, they way this rule is written right now, that is not 
the case. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and let 
us bring an open rule that applies a truth test to every substitute 
that is before us today. The American people deserve better than what I 
think this gutless bill we have before us now provides. They want to 
know, and they deserve to know, the truth.
  I think, Madam Speaker, it is way past time that we gave it to them.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding me this time, 
and I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for revealing 
the true specific plan to achieve a balanced budget, showing that it 
can be done.
  Madam Speaker, on November 8 of last year, the American people 
elected us to fulfill a contract. That contract includes allowing a 
vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And not just 
any balanced budget amendment, but specifically one that would 
permanently protect the American taxpayer from further unwarranted tax 
hikes--tax hikes like the one in President Clinton's 1993 
reconciliation--that come in the name of deficit reduction. The 
American people signaled on November 8 that they want us to vote on the 
Barton amendment, and to require a three-fifths supermajority to raise 
taxes. And that's what we will do here today--as promised. Today's 
modified open rule is fair. It provides guidance to navigate through 
the 44 substitutes offered--including many overlapping proposals--by 
bringing forward four Democrat substitutes and one bipartisan 
alternative. There was ongoing consultation with the minority, and the 
minority leader was given the opportunity to designate priority 
amendments. There is some merit in all of the proposals--notably the 
Schaefer substitute, which offers a well-known balanced budget 
amendment that this House has come close to adopting several times in 
the past. But make no mistake, this debate focuses on the version of 
the balanced budget amendment that Americans said they wanted, the one 
included in the Contract With America. Some in this minority will no 
doubt complain that one or another specific proposal is left out of the 
process. But the American people understand that this debate should 
focus on the big ideas--and we won't be sidetracked by those who oppose 
balancing the budget and are using every excuse to slow down passage of 
the balanced budget amendment. American's did not vote for delay--they 
voted for action--now.
  Madam Speaker, as a member of the bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlement Reform and as a Representative from Florida, I am quite 
familiar--if not acutely aware--with the situation facing Social 
Security. According to all the experts, the Social Security trust fund 
will continue to run a surplus until at least 2012--and it is not 
expected to add to the deficit until 2029. The idea that passage now of 
the balanced budget
 amendment will mean immediate and drastic cuts in Social Security 
benefits is a scare tactic pure and simple. That is just not the truth. 
In fact, as demonstrated by the Entitlement Commission findings, the 
greatest threat to Social Security comes from our annual red ink and 
mounting debt--if allowed to continue, interest payments on the debt 
alone could eventually squeeze all other programs--Social Security 
included--out 
[[Page H609]] of the picture. Make no mistake, Social Security is off-
budget, and it will stay that way. The Flanagan resolution--House 
Concurrent Resolution 17--made in order under the rule, shows our firm 
resolve in this respect. The situation is serious: We are currently in 
debt to the tune of $4.6 trillion, a figure that continues to grow by 
over $200 billion a year. Madam Speaker, in light of this I was 
startled to hear the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee 
testify to the Rules Committee that the national debt is currently 
being reduced. I'm not sure how he arrives at this, since every year 
that we run a deficit, we add to our national debt. Surely the minority 
is not advocating still bigger debt for our children to bear. In 
closing I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Barton 
amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], former chairman of the Rules Committee, 
and our ranking member, who has so ably helped us protect the rights of 
the minority and the citizens of our country through his work on this 
committee. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, this is certainly not the open rule that we had been 
promised, and while it is not entirely closed, we are all disappointed 
in the restrictive nature of this resolution for the consideration of a 
measure so momentous as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  As has been well noted by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], the history of the manner in which constitutional amendments 
have been considered, clearly shows that the use of the open rule is 
the wisest approach, and the one that appears to have been most often 
used when the threat of a discharge petition was not pending, as is 
currently the case.
  Even more disappointing, under this rule no perfecting amendments are 
allowed. If even a few of the proposed perfecting amendments had been 
made in order, we could have accommodated most of the major concerns 
about the legislation, and given Members of the House a chance to 
express their feelings on a number of very important additional 
issues--issues which are precluded from considering under this proposed 
rule.
  This is an immensely significant matter that we are dealing with, and 
we should do everything in our power to ensure that we take this step--
if, in fact, we are going to do it--as carefully, and as thoughtfully, 
as possible.
  There clearly were a handful of very fundamental and important issues 
that should have been allowed to be considered as perfecting 
amendments, such as one to consider alone the three-fifths requirement 
to increase tax revenue--a perfecting amendment proposed by Mr. 
Volkmer--and another to require truth in budgeting proposed by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  In addition, several substitutes that were not made in order would 
have provided us with the opportunity to further improve the final 
product of this debate.
  I refer particularly to the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Thornton], which sought to define capital budgets by 
going beyond investments for physical infrastructure alone, to include 
also investments in developmental capital such as education and 
training.
  We should also have been allowed to consider, either as a perfecting 
amendment or as a substitute, the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke] for keeping the minutiae and complexity of changes in the 
budget process itself out of the Constitution, allowing it to be 
handled separately as legislation, and thus providing us with a choice 
for a simpler constitutional amendment.
  And, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] offered several good 
proposals, including one that would allow Congress to approve an 
unbalanced budget during a time of national security emergency, short 
of a declaration of war, which is required in the pending proposal.
  This rule, unfortunately, does not give us that opportunity, and it 
should be rejected.
  Madam Speaker, through the course of this debate, however, I hope 
that it will become abundantly clear why the House should not give 
final approval to any of the alternative versions of this legislation.
  As a longstanding proponent of eliminating Federal budget deficits, 
and as a Member who has acted to achieve that result by supporting and 
voting for many, many unpopular measures to reduce deficits over the 
past dozen years, I share the feelings of frustration which have led 
most of our colleagues to conclude that amending our Constitution is 
our only hope for solving the Federal Government's persistent budget 
deficit problem.
  The enormous deficits the Government has run for the last decade and 
a half are, without a doubt, the leading policy and political failure 
of our generation. By running huge deficits, we have produced a soaring 
debt which requires that we spend 14 percent of annual Federal budgets 
on interest payments. We have done a grave disservice to future 
generations of Americans who will be saddled with that debt; and we 
have damaged our Nation's economic prospects by allowing the debt to 
consume more than $200 billion a year that could otherwise be used for 
much-needed investment, in both the private and public sectors.
  These huge deficits, and the debt they create, are also a large part 
of the reason why voters are angry at Congress and why so many feel 
that our political process just does not work.
  But the solution to the deficit problem is not to amend the 
Constitution; writing a balanced budget requirement into our 
Constitution does nothing in and of itself to bring revenues and 
spending into balance. The solution is to act to cut spending and, if 
necessary, raise taxes. That is what the President and Congress did 
successfully in 1993, and that is what we should do this year and in 
the years ahead until the Federal budget is finally balanced.
  Voting for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is easy; 
it does not require cutting any spending program or raising anyone's 
taxes. It sounds good, and it allows us to say that we are for balanced 
budgets. But the truth is, it is bad policy.
  Passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would give 
Congress an excuse not to reduce the deficit until the year 2002. It 
would allow us to say that we have done something about the deficit 
when, in fact, we will have done nothing real about it.
  In fact, if the House and Senate approve any of these proposals, what 
we will have done is relegate the responsibility for deciding Federal 
budget policy to the States. They will have to debate whether they want 
to ratify this amendment; they will have to decide if Congress is 
capable of bringing Federal revenues and spending into balance; they 
will have to guess how Congress is likely to act in response to a 
balanced budget requirement. At a time when we are trying to reach out 
and improve relationships with our counterparts at the State level, 
passing this amendment will undermine all of our efforts to come to 
terms with which responsibilities to our citizens should be handled at 
the Federal level, and which by the States.
  I believe that it is highly unlikely that three quarters of our 
States will ratify any version of this constitutional amendment. They 
know that if the Federal Government is under a balanced budget 
requirement, they are likely to face deep cuts in Federal aid--cuts 
which will require them to make substantial cuts in spending or to 
raise taxes at a time when most of them already face that unpalatable 
choice.
  Moreover, States will realize that the balanced budget requirement 
for the Federal Government will be far more onerous than those that the 
States themselves operate under. Most States require a balanced 
operating budget, but allow borrowing for capital spending. To the 
extent that they are able to categorize spending as part of their 
capital budget, they are able to borrow extensively. Unless the 
substitute offered by Mr. Wise is adopted, there will be no such 
distinction for the Federal budget.
  But if, in fact, enough States ratified the amendment, Congress would 
undoubtedly go to great lengths to find ways not to comply with it. 
Recall what happened under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which 
Congress passed in 1985; when the President and Congress operated under 
a requirement to reduce deficits to specified levels each year and 
produce a balanced budget within 5 years, we did everything possible to 
circumvent the requirement and avoid hard choices. We used unrealistic 
economic assumptions to produce inflated estimates of revenues, we 
moved programs off budget, and we delayed payments into future years. 
When we ran out of creative bookkeeping
 methods, we changed the deficit-reduction requirements and, finally, 
abandoned the requirements altogether.

  Just as our inability to comply with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in an 
honest way fueled public cynicism toward Congress, so too 
[[Page H610]] would our almost-certain response to a constitutional 
requirement to balance the budget.
  The reason that Congress would try to find ways to avoid complying 
with a balanced budget requirement is the same reason we did not comply 
with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and the same reason we are not voting to 
balance the budget right now: there is no political support for the 
deep program cuts and large tax increases that would be required to 
bring spending and revenues into balance. We may agree, in the 
abstract, that want to balance the budget, but we also realize that the 
draconian spending cuts required--if the budget is balanced through 
spending cuts alone--are not supported by most Americans.
  A constitutional requirement to balance the budget is not going to 
suddenly give us the political support and the political will to cut 
spending cuts and raise taxes. In fact, I would point out that many of 
the Members of the House who are most enthusiastic about a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget are the same Members who 
are equally, if not more, enthusiastic about cutting taxes. And, not 
surprisingly, they are finding themselves unable to develop a plan to 
show how we can produce a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Even if all tax-cut proposals were abandoned, Congress would need to 
cut spending or raise taxes from projected levels by more than $1 
trillion between now and 2002 to balance the budget. There is no doubt 
in my mind that if we were voting on an amendment which also contained 
the actual measures--the spending cuts and tax increases--which would 
balance the budget by 2002, there would be very few votes for it.
  There is another reason we ought not to enshrine a balanced budget 
requirement in the Constitution: A balanced budget is not always good 
economic policy. A requirement that would force Congress to cut 
spending or raise taxes in the middle of a recession could be 
disastrous for our economy. We need flexibility in Federal budget 
policy to counter the swings in the economy and the negative effects 
they cause. Some of the alternatives before us would allow Congress to 
override a balanced budget requirement by majority vote; but, if that 
is the case, what is the purpose of such a constitutional amendment?
  On the other hand, the alternative proposed by Representative 
Stenholm anticipates the possible need for deficit spending by allowing 
expenditures to exceed revenues if three-fifths of both Houses of 
Congress vote to approve deficit spending. That provision, however, 
would enable a minority of Members--whether partisan, regional, 
ideological, or otherwise--to control the outcome of a decision on this 
matter, just as the Barton alternative, requiring a three-fifths vote 
to raise taxes, would do on that question.
  By giving minorities in both Chambers the power to demand concessions 
in return for their votes--and the power to veto, in effect, 
legislation supported by a majority of Members--this provision would 
make it extraordinarily difficult for Congress to govern. It would 
severely constrain Congress in its ability to respond effectively, and 
in a way supported by a majority of Americans, to the problems facing 
our Nation.
  Finally, we have little understanding of how a constitutional 
amendment requiring a balanced budget would be enforced--what would 
happen if Congress failed to match revenues and spending. It is not 
clear whether the President or the courts will enforce this--or whether 
it could be enforced at all. If the resolution of a budget imbalance is 
left to the courts, it would put unelected Federal judges in the 
position of deciding our Nation's fiscal policy.
  Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, the proposals before us to 
amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget should be rejected, 
and the rule before us, as I said at the beginning of my statement, 
should be rejected as well. Let us resolve, instead, to build on the 
work we began last Congress when we enacted legislation that is, in 
fact, reducing deficits by half a trillion dollars over 5 years.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my 
friend, the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me 
this time, and I rise to congratulate the gentlewoman as well as the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart], and the other new members of the Rules Committee for the 
superb work they are doing, joining the force of Solomon, Quillen, 
Goss, and so forth.
  Let me say that on this issue of the balanced budget amendment, it is 
fascinating to listen to the arguments that are being made in 
opposition to this rule by a number of my friends. I think it is 
important for us to take an historical perspective in looking at this 
issue.

                              {time}  1310

  I know my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], raised a 
number of these points. But it is worth noting that over the past 14 
years, we have seen the balanced budget amendment brought up to the 
House floor on four different occasions. Never once, never once did the 
Committee on Rules report out a rule that provided the wide range of 
options that are being provided under this rule.
  The other thing, there was a fascinating argument made upstairs, and 
my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. Schroeder], raised great 
concern about this. The Committee on the Judiciary only had an 8-hour 
markup on this measure when they met. In previous Congresses, they did 
not allow 8 minutes of markup, much less 8 hours. So to argue that 
there was not an opportunity for wide ranging debate in this markup is 
preposterous.
  I think when we listen to the overwhelming hue and cry that has come 
from across this country to balance the budget, we have the President 
who spoke here last night, and most of us concluded that it was not the 
President's finest hour. In fact, it was not the President's finest 2 
hours here last night. It seems to me that we need to note that they 
are all calling for us to immediately provide a list of exactly how we 
plan to balance the budget.
  Well, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are 
well aware of the way the budget process works. We have a Committee on 
the Budget. The responsibility for outlining those things lies with 
that committee, not with a particular piece of legislation like this 
amendment.
  Clearly we know that we have the responsibility to bring those 
proposed cuts forward, and it is going to be done under the standing 
rules of this House, something which tragically in the past have been 
ignored, but something which we are doing our darnedest to stick to 
just as well as we possibly can.
  I also am concerned about the fact that behavior in the past has seen 
the other side use that ridiculous king-of-the-hill procedure, whereby 
the last standing measure, the last one voted on, even though it may 
not have gotten the greatest number of votes in the House, is carried. 
We have modified that so-called king-of-the-hill procedure so that the 
provision which has the highest number of votes will be the one that 
carries. It seems to me that we need to realize that we are, were the 
deliberative process, bringing this forward in a fair way, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this balanced approach to the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I too rise in opposition to this 
rule. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this rule 
is some sort of move toward openness. But let us look at what the rule 
actually does.
  This is a closed rule. The Committee on Rules received 44 requests 
for amendments from Members of this body, yet only 5 were made in 
order, in addition to the committee substitute.
  Debate is choked off on many, many issues that directly affect the 
American people. People want to know what the programs are that will be 
cut under this amendment. Will they lose their Social Security, what is 
going to happen to Medicare, what about programs like disaster relief, 
education benefits, or crime prevention? How much are we going to have 
to cut defense?
  I have part of one of the largest air bases in the world in my 
district. What is going to happen to that air base under this 
particular amendment?
  We need to be fair and up front with ourselves and with the American 
people. Therefore, I am going to vote against the previous question, 
which allows us to bring up a resolution known as the truth-in-
budgeting resolution. This resolution simply requires us tell the 
American people what programs will be cut in order to achieve a 
balanced budget.
  I do not think that is too much to ask. I am particularly concerned 
with the effects of this balanced budget 
[[Page H611]] amendment on some of our successful antipoverty programs. 
According to the Children's Defense Fund, a balanced budget amendment 
could result in approximately 7.6 million children losing school 
lunches, 6.6 million children losing Head Start opportunities, and 
231,000 blind and disabled children losing basic income supports 
through SSI. And the list goes on and on.
  There is no doubt that balancing the budget requires tough cuts and 
very difficult choices. But that debate should take place in an open 
forum, truthfully, and up front.
  I offered a number of amendments to the rule yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules, allowing Members' ideas to be brought to the floor 
and debated. Those amendments had to do with Social Security, taxes, 
low-income programs, civil and human rights and the disabled. They were 
defeated every time by a partisan vote.
  Let us really show the public we can have an open and fair debate. 
Vote against the previous question, and vote ``no'' on this closed 
rule.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today marks another historic day in the life of the 
104th Congress as the new Republican majority continues working to 
fulfill its promises to the American people. On opening day, we adopted 
a sweeping set of congressional reforms to make the House more open, 
efficient, and accountable. Last week, we overwhelmingly approved a 
long-overdue measure to bring this institution into compliance with the 
same laws it imposes on the rest of society.
  Last Thursday, as part of our plan to reduce the burden of Federal 
regulations, we began debate on discouraging the practice of imposing 
costly, unfunded, Federal mandates on States, local governments, and 
the private sector. And today, as we proudly begin debate on this 
historic rule, the House moves one step closer toward adopting a 
constitutional balanced budget amendment, the very cornerstone of our 
contract's plan to restore fiscal sanity to the congressional budget 
process.
  Madam Speaker, Congress can and should balance the budget without 
being forced to do so. But the fact remains, it hasn't. And with a 
Federal debt nearing $5 trillion and budget deficits in 33 of the past 
34 years, it is clear that Congress is unable to solve the Nation's 
fiscal crisis entirely on its own. Some Members just don't have the 
stomach or the desire to make the tough decisions.
  The time has finally come to give constitutional expression to a 
policy practiced by thousands of families and businesses across America 
every day: learning to live within our means. Without constitutional 
constraints to deficit spending, future generations of Americans will 
be forced to bear the costs of our excesses. We should be ashamed to 
leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that I fully appreciate the seriousness of 
this legislation. And the rule which we have recommended is abundantly 
fair as it allows the House to consider six different versions of the 
balanced budget amendment, four sponsored by Democrat Members, one by 
Republicans, and one bipartisan proposal.
  The fact that the House will soon consider a balanced budget 
amendment just 3 weeks after opening day is proof positive that the new 
Republican majority is serious about keeping its promises to the 
American people. I congratulate Chairman Solomon and the leadership for 
bringing this fair rule to the floor today. In terms of fairness it is 
light years ahead of what we've seen in Congresses past. I strongly 
urge its adoption by the House.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to read a statement: ``With every closed 
rule, millions of voters are disenfranchised when their duly elected 
representatives are prevented from offering relevant amendments to 
bills we consider.''
  These are the words stated by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] 
at a press conference held by the Rules task force on April 23, 1993.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost].
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, for some time I have been a supporter of a 
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the 16 years I 
have served in this body, I have seen the public debt triple to well 
over $4 trillion and have watched as the Congress has struggled to 
bring the Federal budget and the deficit under control. Until recently, 
we in the Congress, working with Presidents both Republican and 
Democratic, have had only limited success in curbing the spriraling 
growth of Government spending. Thanks to the policies instituted in the 
last Congress, we are now witnessing a steady downward path of the 
deficit, but I remain convinced that stronger measures are called for 
if we are to finally, once and for all, bring the budget of this Nation 
into balance. And, for that reason, I will support passage of a 
constitutional amendment when the House votes tomorrow.
  However, Madam Speaker, in spite of my record of support for just 
such a constitutional amendment, I must rise in opposition to this 
rule. My Republican colleagues made a number of points yesterday during 
our markup of this rule saying that it provides for the consideration 
of more options than have been considered in the past few years.

                              {time}  1320

  But I would like to clarify a point. In the past the rules providing 
for consideration of balanced budget constitutional amendments have not 
been reported from the Committee on Rules. Rather, they have been 
considered by discharge petition or the Committee on Rules has simply 
reported a rule tracking the provisions of a discharge petition about 
to reach the floor, thereby limiting the terms of debate.
  My Republican colleagues will respond by saying this rule provides 
for the most free and open debate ever granted to a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. But I would like to say that this rule 
does not really provide for the free and open debate promised by 
Republican candidates for election to the 104th Congress. This rule 
reported by the Republican majority has limited the opportunities for 
Members to express their views on how to bring about fiscal restraint. 
The chairman notified the Members of the House that the committee might 
limit the consideration of amendments to those printed in the 
Congressional Record last Friday as well as to those amendments 
submitted in the form of amendments in the nature of a substitute. Yet 
the Republican rule contains a provision providing for the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution which not one Democratic 
member of the committee saw until yesterday, just prior to our markup.
  The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules recommended a rule 
that included consideration of five substitutes to the joint 
resolution. The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules rejected 
23 amendments offered to the rule by the Democratic members of the 
committee during our markup. Not one single amendment was agreed to 
during the markup by the Republicans.
  A variety of reasons were offered. Time constraints prevented 
additional debate on further amendments. The rule makes in order four 
Democratic alternatives as well as one bipartisan alternative. Debate 
in previous Congresses was far more restrictive.
  Madam Speaker, I do not understand the need to limit debate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, with all due respect, and the gentleman 
is one of the most respected Members of this House, in the Congresses 
that he has been here for 16 years, he has voted for every one of those 
restricted rules that far more restrict Members on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I point out to the 
chairman that his party ran on a platform of open rules. I know that 
this gentleman is sincere. I know that this gentleman intends to have 
open rules. But for some reason we did not have an open rule in this 
particular case.
  For that reason, I must oppose the rule.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
[[Page H612]] from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, as we debate this fair rule for 
consideration of this very important constitutional amendment, I ask 
the question: Why is there a very serious financial crisis in Mexico 
today that we are dealing with precisely in this Congress because of 
its worrisome effects? Because of lack of confidence by the 
international financial community on the ability of Mexico to pay on 
debt that will shortly be coming due. Investors will no longer buy 
bonds there due to uncertainty regarding whether they will be paid, 
whether those bonds will be paid when they mature. In other words, when 
they come due.
  Now, if our own debt continues to increase indefinitely, even though, 
for example, even economists like Keynes, who believe in stimulation of 
the economy through deficit spending occasionally, he never, for 
example, supported permanent deficit spending.
  If our debt would continue to grow indefinitely, $4 trillion, $5 
trillion, $6 trillion, $7 trillion, theoretically, and then there would 
one day be doubt as to our creditworthiness, God forbid if that ever 
happened, who would bail us out, Madam Speaker? Who would bail us out? 
The International Monetary Fund? No, we pay more into the International 
Monetary Fund than anybody else? Germany, Saudi Arabia? Who would bail 
the United States of America out, Madam Speaker? Is it acceptable to 
depend on other countries to theoretically bail us out? No, it is not.
  We must stand on our own for our children and for their children and 
their grandchildren, and we owe it to them to be able to stand on our 
own and maintain due to fiscal responsibility now and an end to fiscal 
irresponsibility, the economic security into the future that we 
require, that is why we need to pass this rule and this constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, I would like to put this debate in 
perspective for the American people. The Constitution empowers the 
Congress of the United States to balance the budget. But the Congress 
evidently cannot do that or does not want to do that anymore. So the 
Congress wants to empower the Constitution to balance the budget.
  Now, Members would think by now Congress might have learned. It 
started out with Gramm-Latta, then it went to Gramm-Kemp, then it went 
to Gramm-Rudman. Now it is going to be Gramm-constitution in a 2-minute 
drill no less.
  I say to the Congress, this is going to turn into Gramm-bankrupt. 
Because Congress has to balance the budget. And let us look at the 
facts. The American people are saying, OK, we gave the Republican Party 
the authority.
  You are in charge. You want a balanced budget. You chair the 
committees. Bring out the balanced budget. We know you cannot do that 
with a $300 billion deficit, $5 trillion debt and $300 billion of 
interest payments. But in 10 years from now the Constitution is going 
to balance the budget with $7 trillion of national debt, $500 billion 
in interest on that payment, but the Constitution is going to do it.
  It is not the Constitution, Congress. It is the Tax Code. It is not 
the Constitution, Congress. It is the trade laws.
  The President did not mention the $153 billion record trade deficit 
yesterday and 20,000 jobs for every $1 billion in deficit, that is 3 
plus million jobs at $30,000 a piece.
  Congress should be wise to remember history. There was a popular 
saying during the depression by working people that said, Harding blew 
the whistle, Coolidge rang the bell, Hoover pulled the throttle, and 
all American jobs went to hell.
  By the way, if Thomas Jefferson had a constitutional requirement to 
balance the budget, Thomas Jefferson would not have been able to 
consummate the Louisiana Purchase.
  It is the Tax Code and trade policies, Congress. We are killing jobs. 
We are penalizing achievement. We are rewarding dependency, and we are 
insulting the intelligence of the American people.
  Let me say this: No Hail Mary pass at the last minute to empower the 
Constitution to balance the budget is going to solve our problems. It 
is jobs. You will find them in our Tax Code and our trade laws. And why 
do we not start dealing with it.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to prove that we hear the 
people's voice demanding real change in this Congress and could keep 
our commitment to them. As families sit down to plan their household 
budget, to pay the rent or the mortgage, to buy back-to-school clothes 
for the kids, or to repair the car, they want to know why Congress does 
not have to do what they have to do, balance their budget.
  Families make priorities. They give up some things they would like to 
do for things they need to do. And as Congress moves to balance its 
budget, as we must do, we are going to have to make some difficult 
choices.
  But I have great faith in the American people that not only do they 
expect us to make these decisions but they will support us in making 
these decisions if we work with them and talk with them and listen to 
them and spend their money wisely on things they value most.
  We need to pass a balanced budget amendment to give this Congress the 
fiscal discipline it has repeatedly proven it does not have.
  The rule that we have reported provides for the most inclusive, open, 
honest debate on a balanced budget amendment in the history of the 
Congress.
  Of critical importance, this rule will allow us to reaffirm, through 
Concurrent Resolution No. 17, our commitment to our seniors that we 
will not use Social Security to balance the budget.

                              {time}  1330

  Seniors will not pay the price for this Congress' past mistakes. The 
fearmongering by those less concerned about the peace of mind of our 
seniors than their own political agenda should end.
  At the same time, Madam Speaker, this rule will allow us to protect 
our children by ending Congress' reprehensible habit of spending away 
their future. Madam Speaker, it is long past time to pass a balanced 
budget amendment, and this rule will allow us to do that. I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in keeping our word to the people who sent 
us here, and to support this rule and pass a balanced budget amendment
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton].
  (Mr. THORNTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THORNTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], the ranking member, for yielding time to me.
  Truth in budgeting is important. It is important to know what 
programs will be cut and priorities will be protected.
  Last night President Clinton told us of the heroic act of Jack Lucas 
and commended all veterans who are willing to risk their lives for us, 
and he said, ``We owed them a debt we could never repay.'' He then 
challenged us, as we make cuts in Government spending, to remember our 
obligations to our children, parents, and others who have risked their 
lives by protecting education, Social Security, and Medicare, and 
veterans' benefits from those cuts.
  Madam Speaker, my proposed amendment would have accomplished those 
goals. Last night, Madam Speaker, I was pleased that this suggestion 
received a standing ovation from both sides of the House, for these are 
truly nonpartisan goals.
  That is why I am so puzzled by the Committee on Rules' decision not 
to allow a vote on this balanced budget amendment, which has bipartisan 
support and would accomplish all of these goals. I find it truly 
amazing that even though our veterans put their lives on the line in 
defense of our democracy, we are not allowed today to even have a vote 
on whether to honor our commitment to those who have risked their lives 
for our democracy.
  [[Page H613]] Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out that truth in 
budgeting is important. We need to know where the cuts will fall.
  The refusal to allow a vote to protect education, Social Security, 
Medicare, and veterans' benefits means that those benefits are fair 
fame for the budget ax. We need an open rule so we can have truth in 
budgeting.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Lakewood, CO [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 44. Madam 
Speaker, I want to commend the leadership and the Committee on Rules 
for putting together a rule that fulfills two items that, I believe, 
are the cornerstone of our party's Contract With America.
  The first is an early vote on the balanced budget amendment, and for 
the first time ever, we have not had to resort to end-running a 
reluctant leadership for trying to get a balanced budget amendment on 
the floor. I think this rule does that.
  It is the first item of business that brings up the contract version 
of the BBA sponsored by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton]. I strongly urge every one of my colleagues to support the 
three-fifths tax limitation version of the amendment.
  The rule also fulfills another cornerstone of the contract, and that 
is of open and fair rules. This carefully crafted rule ensures that we 
let the American people know who does and does not support tax 
limitation, while at the same time maximizing the likelihood that this 
body will send a balanced budget amendment to the States for 
ratification.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAEFER, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has worked long and hard on this issue.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today. 
While I had offered a suggestion for a little different kind of a rule, 
I believe on close analysis this is a fair rule for purposes of 
debating the relevant issues that will come before us today.
  Madam Speaker, I would say, as one of the coauthors of the Schaefer-
Stenholm amendment, to those who are concerned about Social Security 
benefits, education, and all of the other extremely important 
endeavors, there is nothing in our substitute that has anything to do 
with a negative effect on any of those issues. That will be brought out 
in general debate.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 44 allowing for 
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, as well as five 
substitute amendments to that language.
  I want to commend the Republican leadership for its prompt 
consideration of this critical matter. As this body knows, it has taken 
herculean efforts on the part of many Members, both Democrat and 
Republican, to bring this issue to the floor during the last three 
Congresses. In each case, we filed discharge petitions to the rules 
allowing for the consideration of these matters. In each case, we 
crafted rules which granted a fair and open debate on the major 
contending approaches to amending the Constitution for purposes of 
requiring a balanced Federal budget. And in each case we, 
unfortunately, fell just short of the two-thirds support necessary for 
passage.
  I am supporting this rule because I believe it allows for debate on 
those relevant issues of greatest concern to House Members. While I had 
suggested an alternative way to handle the rule which the committee did 
not adopt, I believe that this rule is fair and I
 am pleased, Chairman Solomon, to be able to support it today.

  My great, great hope is that this year, at last, will be the final 
time to deliberate this issue. It is time for us to get the amendment 
behind us so that all of this energy can be focused, instead, on the 
actual process of achieving a balanced budget.
  All of the hours my staff and I, not to mention so many others, have 
been required to put into this issue notwithstanding, I know that our 
forbears showed remarkable wisdom and foresight when they made it so 
difficult for us to amend the Constitution. This is no minor task we 
will be undertaking for the next 2 days.
  When we Representatives take our oath of office, we swear to uphold 
the Constitution of the United States. That oath must not be taken 
lightly. This is no place for games-playing. It is no place for seeking 
political advantage. It is no place for irresponsible, short-sighted 
self-interest.
  I hope that the remarks which fill the debate of the next 2 days, 
regardless of whether the speaker be favorably or negatively inclined 
toward the amendments, reflect the seriousness of our endeavor.
  Because when these 2 days are over, regardless of the final outcome 
of these votes, we will find ourselves still facing the cancer of debt 
which is destroying the fiscal flesh and bones of our country. 
Regardless of whether you vote yea or nay on House Joint Resolution 1 
or on any of the amendments, each individual Member must be willing to 
say, ``This is what I did today to make our country a better place.''
  I appeal to both sides, let us deliberate this issue 
straightforwardly and honestly. Especially to the freshmen Members I 
would say, please evaluate this issue on its merits, not on its 
internal or external politics. There is no such thing as an easy vote 
on a constitutional amendment.
  I come here prepared to work hard these next 2 days and my hope is 
that the hard work will pay off with 290 votes on final passage. But as 
I said last year at the beginning of this debate, come Friday I'll have 
the same gameplan whether the BBA wins or loses and whether the tax 
limit wins or loses. Regardless of how many votes there are, I'll be 
working hard for the rest of the year to chip away at our monstrous 
deficit. Next week I'll be working with Peter Visclosky to develop a 
revised enforcement implementation plan. This spring I'll be working 
with Chairman Kasich amd Ranking Democrat Sabo on the first installment 
of the 7-year glidepath to a balanced budget. Teaming up with Jane 
Harman and Chet Edwards, I will push for some of those budget process 
reforms that we believe will make a difference in the way business is 
done around here. Joining with David Minge, Dan Miller, and other 
porkbusters I will seek to keep our appropriations bills clean and 
lean.
  My wish is that even those who vote against the constitutional 
amendment--in fact, especially those who vote against a constitutional 
amendment--are ready to join me in saying, ``This is what I did this 
Congress, this year, this day, to take the debt off of my children's 
shoulders.''
  Again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and, 
subsequently, to support the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule proposed for 
House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I support 
balancing the Federal budget, but I believe, as an elected 
Representative of the people, that I owe them the responsibility and 
respect to tell them how I will do so. This balanced budget amendment 
does not do that.
  The Republican leadership, as the new majority, made a commitment to 
procedural rules for open debate and fairness. But sadly, the rule 
before us now is closed. Closed.
  I have an amendment that I would like to offer. It provides for rainy 
day funds for purposes of emergencies, natural disasters. But I cannot 
offer it on the floor of this House today, even though I think it is a 
very worthy amendment, especially for folks in California, where I am 
from, where we are suffering tremendously. We cannot do that. That is a 
closed rule.
  Madam Speaker, we have to admit that we really have entered the world 
of Alice in Wonderland when Democrats end up fighting harder than 
Republicans to keep Republican promises.
  It is time, Madam Speaker, that we try to do the people's work and 
give the people their day in court. It is a slap in the face to our 
constituents when we cannot even come up here and to propose amendments 
that are valuable and will affect the Nation's course of history, 
because we are talking about an amendment to the Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to vote against this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Linder], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, this is an extraordinary day for those of 
us 
[[Page H614]] who have held dear to the Reagan-Bush axiom that the 
Federal Government is too big and it spends too much. For too long 
Government has been incapable of managing its finances in a responsible 
manner, and the passage of a balanced budget amendment is an important 
first step in assuring that this Nation is fiscally sound as we move 
into the 21st century.
  Madam Speaker, I also strongly support the rule, which will allow 
consideration of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many 
duplicate amendments were offered to the Committee on Rules, but I am 
pleased that six distinct constitutional amendments will be considered 
on the House floor in the coming days.
  Madam Speaker, it is important to note that in the past the House 
refused even to hold a markup on this bill. I believe that the 
Committee on Rules has been extraordinarily fair and prudent in 
approving twice as many minority amendments as majority amendments in 
this debate.
  The balanced budget amendment with the three-fifths tax limitation 
provision will force Congress to curb its spending, and will go a long 
way toward eliminating Government waste and Government abuse of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed 
rule. In this and the last two Congresses, I have filed a balanced 
budget amendment which is not a dilatory amendment. It is a substantial 
amendment which the Committee on Rules refuses to allow to be brought 
here to the floor and voted upon.
  Madam Speaker, it is a unique concept. It is the only amendment which 
requires actual receipts and outlays to be balanced, the only amendment 
with an actual enforcement mechanism. When presented to the Committee 
on Rules, the chairman said ``We have 46 amendments. We can't possibly 
take them all to the floor.'' Why not? Why not? Is it because there are 
other issues in the contract to discuss?
  This is the Contract With America, the Constitution of the United 
States. Only 16 times in the last 200 years have we amended this 
Constitution. There is nothing more important.
  Suppose that Thomas Jefferson had taken, then, the floor of the 
Constitutional Convention and said ``We don't have time to listen to 
all of you. We are going to take 5 ideas, debate them, and then vote.''

                              {time}  1340

  We would have never have had the opportunity to hear of the great 
compromise which created the House and Senate. We would have never had 
this Constitution.
  Oppose the rule. Vote against the rule. Allow us to bring all of the 
ideas about changing this document.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, yielding myself 30 seconds, I would point 
out to the gentleman from Utah that Thomas Jefferson was not at the 
Constitutional Convention; he was the Ambassador to France at the time. 
The gentleman from Utah last year voted for the very closed restrictive 
rule. Now he is complaining about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman's leadership for 
the fight in the balanced budget amendment. He has been a very 
dedicated soldier in this regard.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The deficit this year 
is forecast to be $176 billion. This is actually down from several 
years of deficits well in excess of $200 billion.
  The accumulated national debt is now $4.7 trillion. This includes 
both debt held by the public and debt owed to the trust funds. If we do 
nothing, the deficit situation will grow far worse. Current CBO 
projections show the annual deficits increasing to over $300 billion a 
year after the turn of the century.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support the balanced budget tax limitation 
amendment included in the Contract With America, the Barton language. 
If that version fails to garner 290 votes, I will support the 
alternative language offered by my good friend from Colorado, Dan 
Schaefer.
  The current amendments before this House are directed at ending 
annual deficits. This is great. It means that in 2002 we will at least 
have stopped adding to the accumulated debt. But by then, we will still 
have an accumulated national debt of over $6 trillion, and our children 
will have to pay interest on this accumulated debt for every year in 
the future. That interest will force Federal taxes to be higher than 
they should be.
  Under current CBO forecasts, Federal spending will grow an average of 
5.3 percent a year. In order to achieve a balanced budget, we must hold 
that rate of growth at 2 percent, and we can still pay for the tax 
cuts. This means that instead of spending $2.5 trillion more than if we 
froze spending, we can spend $1 trillion more. It is clear to me that 
we can and must do this for our children.
  Last November the American people sent a clear message to Congress. 
They want us to pass the toughest balanced budget amendment that we 
can. This is how I will cast my vote.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to the time remaining 
on both sides of the aisle?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] that we will be closing on this debate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the minority leader, 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire, is the gentleman yielding 
his remaining time to the minority leader?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The gentleman from Massachusetts had 4 
minutes remaining and has yielded 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this gag 
rule so that we can shred the veil of secrecy that shrouds this 
amendment and tell the American people what is really at stake in this 
debate.
  My colleagues, when we talk about tacking amendments on to the 
Constitution of the United States, we are talking about the most sacred 
responsibility we have as legislators: To ensure that the document that 
has steered our ship of state for more than two centuries advances the 
goals we share as a nation, openness, fairness, opportunity for all. 
That is why I think it is crucial that a balanced budget amendment, an 
amendment that would touch on every aspect of the lives of our 
constituents, is considered in an open, fair, and honest manner.
  I would urge and urged yesterday an open rule for this debate, one 
that allows every amendment that has been presented to be considered by 
the House, every argument that has been presented to be heard, and 
every avenue for having a constitutional amendment to be understood.
  How else will the American people know that we looked before we 
leapt? You see, for Democrats, the question is not whether we balance 
the budget, the question is how we balance the budget, and who is 
affected and how they are affected.
  When we ask our friends on the other side of the aisle what gets cut, 
whose belt will be tightened, to borrow the words of my good friend the 
Republican leader, ``Their knees buckle.''
  So we say we are not signing this contract until we can read the fine 
print. That is why I asked for a vote during this consideration of the 
balanced budget amendment on a statute that I call the honest budget 
bill that would force the Congress to say in a budget resolution 
exactly how we want to balance the budget before the amendment is sent 
out to the States. But this rule refuses to allow us to consider that 
legislation.
  So my question is, is there a hidden agenda here? Is there somewhere 
in here a veiled attack on Social Security 
[[Page H615]] or Medicare which some of our friends on the other side 
have threatened in the past? Our States have a right to know. And our 
people, most importantly, have a right to understand how this budget 
will be balanced.
  I know the Republican majority is trying to move fast on the 
contract. I think it is because the contract is losing ground with 
every passing opinion poll. The reality is the more that the people 
know about the contract, the less they like it, and I sympathize.
  But is this not what democracy is all about? Giving people the 
information that they deserve to make informed, educated, choices about 
their own lives? Even if it means sometimes our contracts, our ideas, 
our proposals, are rejected and we have to go back to the drawing 
board.
  I urge Members, vote for the previous question, defeat this gag rule. 
If this amendment is not good enough to withstand the bright light of 
truth, then, my friends, it is not good enough for the American people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I think the minority leader misspoke. We want to vote 
against the previous question.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Vote no on the previous question. The gentleman knew 
what I meant.
  Madam Speaker, let me end with this last point. This is perhaps the 
most important legislation we will consider in our whole time in the 
Congress. There is not a more important, far-reaching bill or bills 
than this set of proposals.
  I urge Members to allow the fullest possible debate. This bill will 
affect our people's lives more than anything we will vote on in the 
time we are in the House of Representatives.
  Vote no on the previous question, vote against the gag rule. Let all 
of the alternatives be debated in a completely open rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I would just say the distinguished 
minority leader is absolutely right, this is probably going to be the 
most important vote we will cast in our career in this Congress. The 
balanced budget amendment is going to do what the American people want 
us to do for a change.
  I would just have to take exception with the minority leader calling 
this a gag rule. He has been here longer than I have, but for the last 
4 successive, preceding Congresses, he has voted personally, as has 
everyone on his side of the aisle, for a much more restrictive gag rule 
than this one will ever be.

                              {time}  1350

  This is a fair rule in which we took into consultation the minority 
leader and other Members of his party.
  Let me just say this, Madam Speaker, the Democrat minority leader is 
using the faulty argument that we should not require a balanced budget 
until Congress adopts a detailed plan for balancing that budget.
  Using that kind of logic, if today's House Democrats had been in 
charge at the time of Pearl Harbor, we would still be debating today 
over a detailed plan for winning the war in the Pacific, before we 
could vote on a declaration of war.
  That is what this is, the same analogy, the deficit is the war we are 
fighting today. We are not going to be forced to deal with it until we 
recognize we are under attack, declare war on it, and then set about 
mobilizing and planning to win that war.
  Having said that, Madam Speaker, before I close and move the previous 
question, let me explain that since we reported the rule yesterday, it 
has been called to our attention that there is a discrepancy in the 
Committee on the Judiciary report between the total votes cast for and 
against amendment No. 6 on the actual number of the Members listed by 
name as voting for and against the amendment. I appreciate the minority 
calling this to our attention so we can correct this mistake by way of 
an amendment to this rule.
  We hope we can work cooperatively in insuring that our new 
accountability rules will work for the good of the House and for the 
public.
                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: On page 2, at line 19, 
     insert after ``clause (2)(g)(3)'' the following: ``or clause 
     2(l)(2)(B)''.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, out of courtesy to the minority, I ask 
unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes for this rule, and that I 
be permitted to yield 5 minutes of that time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for the purposes of controlling that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I have already explained the amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the proposed amendment to this rule waives clause 
2(l)(2). This clause reflects changes made on opening today to require 
that committee reports accurately reflect all rollcall votes on 
amendments in committee.
  Madam Speaker, the point of order that lies against the Committee on 
the Judiciary report is the very same point of order that applied to 
the unfunded mandates bill.
  The Committee on Rules majority also failed to waive the point of 
order on the unfunded mandates bill.
  On January 19 the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] made a 
parliamentary inquiry to establish for the Record that the point of 
order applied, but he did not press in that point of order.
  The minority does not wish to obstruct, but it is our responsibility 
to call the majority as it tries to circumvent the very rules we 
adopted on opening day.
  If the new majority believes it is important to require an accurate 
tally of each rollcall vote on amendments in committee, they should do 
it. At a minimum they should include a waiver in the rule when they do 
not live up to their own requirements.
  To depend on our good graces not to press points of order week after 
week just cannot be acceptable.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This 
restrictive rule did not allow many important and substantive 
substitutes. One of the substitutes offered and not allowed was one 
that I offered.
  My substitute mirrored other balanced budget substitutes requiring 
the Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget. It would have 
required a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. However, it contained 
one important difference. It would also have required a three-fifths 
majority to cut spending for programs supporting the safety net for the 
poor.
  Specifically, it would have protected these programs respecting 
subsistence, health, education, and employment. It is my belief that 
these programs which comprise the safety net for America's most 
vulnerable citizens deserve protection.
  Programs likely to be slashed include LIHEAP, Head Start, mass 
transit, and the list could go on and on. Too often poor families and 
their children are the least heard in Washington. They deserve to be 
heard and they deserve to be heard on my substitute.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to point out to my friends and colleagues here 
this afternoon, we started off this session 
[[Page H616]] with the first two rules being closed, and then we 
adopted a package of rule reforms, some of which we agreed with, some 
of which we did not.
  Our point here today is to make it clear to you that we intend to 
make you live by the rules and the reforms that we instituted on that 
first day of session.
  We had one other chance to do what we are raising this afternoon and 
that is to raise a point of order on the rule as it came out of the 
committee on the unfunded mandates bill. We did not do that because we 
knew it would delay, and we could not go on with the business of the 
House, and we let it go. The issue was basically the same as it is 
today, that the report language coming out of the Committee on Rules 
was not complete, in fact it was inaccurate.
  So, I just want to make it very clear this afternoon that we are 
determined to speak up and to protect the rule reforms that were 
instituted in this House and to prevent our Members from being gagged, 
from discussing these important issues as they come before this body. 
We are not going to tolerate further points of order requests without 
proper consultation and consideration for the needs of the people on 
our side of the aisle.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 30 remaining seconds.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], our Ambassador to Korea.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, I wish to add my voice to the opposition to this rule 
for two reasons that have been stated very eloquently. First, the rule 
does not protect programs important to the public, from severe cuts; 
and, second, I think that truth-in-budgeting provision is critically 
important to have.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition of the rule for two reasons: 
Although I support a balanced budget, this rule does not protect 
programs like Social Security and Medicare, important to the public 
from severe cuts. Second, this rule precludes the truth-in-budgeting 
pension--we need to explain what programs we are cutting and be honest 
about what a balanced budget means.
  Madam Speaker, when we are facing a possible total of $1.2 trillion 
in cuts from this amendment over the next 7 years, an open rule to 
fully examine the impact of those cuts and to protect important 
programs is certainly in order. Many of the substitutes denied by the 
Rules Committee would have helped protect Social Security and other 
programs important to health and education. Apparently, the Rules 
Committee would like to continue the illusion that passing a balanced 
budget amendment will mean no pain for any parts of our population in 
actually getting to a balanced budget.
  Madam Speaker, what is wrong with leveling with the American people 
about what programs could be cut while balancing the budget? Many hard-
working Americans rely on programs such as Medicare and Social Security 
to give them economic security and a safety net in times of trouble.
  Madam Speaker, we should defeat this rule and allow for one that 
would bring about careful consideration of the impact of this amendment 
and help protect programs important to the public from deep budget 
cuts. We need a rule that reduces the rhetoric and increases honesty in 
cutting the budget. That's what the public wants to see.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I just will say, when the gentleman makes 
the motion on the previous question I hope that the Members will vote 
no on it, so we can get an open rule that the gentleman from New York 
will be proud of. If he thinks this is the most open rule, we are going 
to give him a most, most, most open rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  But let me just say to my good friend, this may not be a completely 
open rule, but it is the most fair rule that ever came to this floor 
for a balanced budget amendment.
  Let me just say the minority whip had mentioned that the report 
coming out of the Committee on Rules was in error. It was not a report 
from the Committee on Rules. We do not make errors. It was out of 
another committee. Second, I would just point out that what this is all 
about is that there was a miscalculation on counting the yeas and nays 
on a recorded vote in the Committee on the Judiciary. This simply is to 
take care of that little miscalculation.
  Second, we want to abide by these rules. You know, we have one which 
now requires committee reports coming out of the committees to simply 
record the yeas and nays of the individual members and how they voted. 
That is part of Speaker Gingrich's orders to this House to be open and 
fair and accountable and let the American people, and I will use the 
word again, ``be accountable.'' Let the American people know how we 
vote here on the floor of this House and in committees.
  There were a great many proposals developed by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] and the committee that I served on concerning 
the reform of Congress that went on to, as you know, to shrink the size 
of this Congress itself by a third, cutting off 700 jobs and shrinking 
it, shrinking this Congress, setting the example of what we are going 
to do to the Federal Government in shrinking Government and returning 
it to the private sector.
  There were a whole slew of these. I will not get into all of those 
now. I do appreciate the consideration of the gentleman.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important that we 
have full and open debate on the balanced budget amendment on the floor 
of the House, because we most assuredly did not have full debate in 
committee. Amending the Constitution is a step we should not take 
either lightly; I cannot think of a matter which is more deserving of 
our most thoughtful and careful deliberation.
  The Subcommittee on the Constitution gave this amendment less than 7 
hours of time in actual debate and markup. We spent less than 6 hours, 
if you exclude the time the majority spent with amendments perfecting 
their own version of the bill. This is astounding--I have spent more 
time making my children's Halloween costumes than I was allowed to 
spend in committee debating an amendment to our fundamental document of 
governance. The Constitution of the United States deserves better from 
all of us.
  When debate in subcommittee was arbitrarily cut off, without any 
advance notice that there would be a limit to debate, significant 
issues had yet to be debated by the committee, including:
  The effects of the amendment during times of recession, and whether 
the amendment would result in pro-cyclical, rather than counter-
cyclical, spending;
  The role of the courts in interpreting and enforcing the amendment, 
including questions of standing; and
  What changes the amendment would bring about in terms of Presidential 
authority.
  Further, the debate the committee did engage in left very significant 
questions unanswered. We ended the committee process without clear 
answers to questions of basic definition and implementation, including 
what is a tax revenue, and what isn't, and what is an outlay.
  The most fundamental question that remains unanswered is one that 
every American is entitled to have answered, because every poll on this 
issue shows that it determines whether or not Americans support this 
amendment, and that is what cuts will be made to balance the budget. 
Polls show that Americans support this amendment if it means cuts in 
defense, but not if it means cuts in Social Security or Federal support 
for education. What are we saying to the American people? ``Trust us; 
we'll tell you about the cuts later?'' That is paternalism, not 
democracy. And we Members of Congress cannot know what those cuts might 
be, because our knees will buckle. Instead, we hear only that they will 
be draconian if Social Security is off the table, as everyone says it 
will be. Mr. Speaker, it is indefensible to ask the Members of this 
House to vote on a matter before we have the details.
  We need full and open debate, and must guarantee that Americans will 
have the details on how the budget will be balanced before the 
constitutional amendment goes to the States for ratification.
  Our duty to the Constitution is paramount. It is essential that the 
floor debate provide us with what the highly abbreviated committee 
process did not: a thorough examination of what this amendment would 
mean to the American people in terms of the budget cuts it would bring 
about. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The question 
is on ordering the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  [[Page H617]] The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore 
announced that the ayes appeared to have it.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. How does the gentleman go about getting a vote on the 
previous question, a separate vote on the previous question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not divisible.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am sorry, on the amendment to the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is putting the previous question 
by voice vote. Those in favor will say ``aye,'' those opposed will say 
``no.''
  In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Are we now putting the question on the amendment to the 
resolution and not on the resolution itself or on the previous 
question?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I object. I am sorry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question has just been ordered 
by voice, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is on his feet.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I object to the vote, Madam Speaker, 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. The gentleman from Massachusetts objects to 
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, makes a point of 
order that a quorum is not present. A quorum is not present, and under 
the rule, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 5(b)(1) of rule XV, the Chair may reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote, if ordered, on 
the amendment to the resolution and on the resolution. Those in favor 
of the question will vote aye, those opposed will vote nay.
  Members will record their votes by electronic device on the question 
of ordering the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 196, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               YEAS--233

     Allard
     Andrews
     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
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     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
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     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
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bishop
     Cubin
     Fields (LA)
     Gibbons
     Smith (MI)

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. WILSON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). Accordingly, 
the previous question is ordered on the amendment to the resolution and 
on the resolution.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] to the resolution, House Resolution 44.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As announced earlier, this is a 5-minute 
vote, and the Chair may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for 
electronic voting if the next vote is called for.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 176, not voting 5, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 38]

                               AYES--253

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     [[Page H618]] 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
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     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
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--176

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bishop
     Cubin
     Fields (LA)
     Gibbons
     Rose

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. MEEHAN and Mr. SKELTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut). The question 
is on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule 5(b)(1), this will be a 5-
minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255, 
noes 172, not voting 7, as follows:
                              [Roll No 39]

                               AYES--255

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     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
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     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
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     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
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     [[Page H619]] Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bishop
     Chenoweth
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Fields (LA)
     Norwood
     Stark

                              {time}  1439

  Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________