[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2073-H2086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 450, REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 93

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 450) to ensure economy and efficiency of 
     Federal Government operations by establishing a moratorium on 
     regulatory rulemaking actions, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform 
     and Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the 
       [[Page H2074]]  five-minute rule for a period of not to 
     exceed ten hours. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which time I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today we are here fulfilling yet 
another promise to the American people and doing it under a rule that 
allows for an open amendment process.
  House Resolution 93 makes in order the committee substitute from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and provides for 1 hour of 
general debate followed by up to 10 hours of amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
  In the opening debate today, I would like to point out that last 
weekend, many sports fans witnessed a very serious threat to public 
health and safety. In fact, several people were injured and thousands 
were placed in grave danger. Yet the Federal Government did not take 
any action to prevent these injuries. Nor is it likely to do so in the 
future.
  I refer, of course, to our former Presidents playing golf in public. 
Notwithstanding the germaneness of this, this story serves to 
illustrate an important point, that the Federal Government, despite the 
best efforts and intentions it may have, cannot provide protection for 
all Americans at all times. Yet it seems that we are coming closer and 
closer to issuing detailed regulations on every minute detail of our 
daily existence.
  I ask my colleagues, how many times have constituents come to them 
and asked for help to head off, sort out, or otherwise mitigate 
needless harm that has come to them or absolute disaster to them 
perhaps caused by poorly thought-out Federal regulation. Individuals, 
small businesses, volunteer groups, local governments have all been 
victims, have all been harmed in some way by the unending flood of 
Federal rules and regulations made by people who apparently have not 
got enough to do.
  As we begin to stem this tide, it is important to remember that H.R. 
450 is not eliminating the rules made since November. Repeat. We are 
not eliminating the rules made since November. We are merely providing 
a much-needed timeout for perhaps up to a year to allow Congress the 
opportunity to responsibly consider serious regulatory reform. I think 
we all know we need it. There is even precedent for this type of 
action.
  President Bush placed a moratorium on new regulation from January 
1992 to January 1993. Of course, not all Federal regulations are 
burdensome or counterproductive. Arguments can certainly be made that 
public health and safety regulations should not be subject to this 
moratorium.
  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has wisely provided 
for a general waiver process for imminent health and safety threats. I 
understand that some would like to see certain imminent threats given 
priority over other imminent threats. I do not agree with the wisdom of 
this kind of amendment.
  I was pleased to hear the ranking member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the gentlewoman from Illinois, state 
at the Committee on Rules yesterday that she would seek to have members 
cluster these amendments offering exemptions of a similar nature in a 
similar package.
                              {time}  1100

  It sounds like a good idea. This does make sense, and it will help us 
avoid the tedious and perhaps unnecessary litany of amendments we saw 
during consideration of the unfunded mandates bill.
  I hope that the overall time limit that we have placed on this rule 
is useful for the gentlewoman, in helping her to organize the efforts 
to consolidate these kinds of amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, it all comes down to this. The American people have 
asked us repeatedly through individual pleas, and more dramatically in 
the November elections, to reform the Federal rule-making process. We 
are taking the first step here by placing the burden of proof on the 
regulatory agencies to prove that new regulations are necessary. This 
is a responsible change and a good beginning for the reform process.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect today we might hear a word or two from the 
minority side about the question of the 10-hour time limit on this. It 
was discussed in the Committee on Rules, and it has been much 
discussed. We have done a lot of homework and review of the records on 
this matter.
  We think this is a fair way to proceed and still allow the necessary 
debate time to come forward, but also to provide for the orderly 
management of all legislation in this House. Of course, we have a very 
heavy agenda of legislation to undertake.
  I know that the minority sometimes feel that they would like to have 
endless debate, and some might call it dilatory tactics, and in fact, 
we have seen some of that. Our view is that we have given the minority 
more than ample blocks of time to manage as they will to bring forward 
with their membership those issues they think they would like to debate 
on the floor. We hope they are able to use that time wisely.
  It does, I admit, put a management burden on the minority leadership 
to control what they are doing, and I believe that is a fair burden to 
place on the minority. It is certainly one we had placed on us when we 
were the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we will see wise use of that time, and 
if we do see wise use of that time, I am entirely satisfied that the 10 
hours that we have set aside under the open amendment process will be 
sufficient.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the 
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule. Although my Republican 
colleagues have been using the words ``fair'' and ``balanced'' a lot 
lately, I have really learned that by ``fair'' and ``balanced,'' by 
some of the glossaries on the other side, they really mean 
``restrictive.''
  In fact, Tuesday I put a chart into the Congressional Record that 
shows the record on restrictive floor procedures. We simply applied the 
Republican definitions to the Republican rules, and it looks like they 
have granted about 71 percent restrictive rules so far. Sometimes we 
may have an open debate, but the rule could be restricted.
  Most of the rules that have come out have been under some kind of a 
time cap which automatically makes the rule anything but open. Today's 
rule has a 10-hour time cap.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that this is 
necessary to keep the flow of legislation moving through the House. Mr. 
Speaker, what a difference a year makes. Just listen to them last year.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] said ``The rule is 
essentially a closed rule because it limits amendments by limiting 
debate on all amendments.'' Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more 
egregious rules that have been reported out by the Committee on Rules. 
  [[Page H2075]] The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my dear 
friend and chairman of the committee, said last year ``Let me say that 
I oppose this rule for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is 
the fact that it restricts the time for the amendment process.''
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important to keep the process 
moving along, but Republicans have a very interesting kind of time 
caps. Republican time caps include time for votes in addition to time 
for amendments, and by my calculations, the last three 10-hour time 
caps have been actually 7-hour time caps, because the vote has been 
eating up about three of the 10 hours on each of these bills.
  If we had any truth in advertising requirements around here, Mr. 
Speaker, we would have to call it 7 hours for amendments and 3 hours 
for a vote time cap. Even more telling is if we would take the number 
of anticipated amendments, divide them into the remaining hours, we 
would probably have 10 to 15 minutes to discuss each amendment. That is 
not what I thought our Republican colleagues had in mind last year when 
they talked about improving the deliberative process.
  It is also interesting to see the pattern of rules that seems to be 
developing. Yesterday we had a wide open rule on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and my Republican colleagues for giving me that wide open 
rule. That is an open rule. I thank them for it, but they cannot put 
this rule in the same context with that rule.
  Mr. Speaker, when the bill is not controversial, we open it up all 
the way. The more controversial it becomes, the more we close it down, 
so I think, because this is more controversial than yesterday's bill, 
we do close it down. They knew that yesterday's bill was 
nonconfrontational, so they gave us a full, wide open rule.
  I think if they keep using that kind of a model, by the time we get 
to welfare reform, we will be lucky to get an hour for amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Committee on Rules to live up to its 
preelection rhetoric of granting open rules to bills in the contract, 
and by that, I mean open rules as the Republicans used to define them. 
This bill would be a good starting point.
  I do not think anyone would argue that there are some serious 
problems in our regulatory process, but there are also a lot of 
regulations in the pipeline, Mr. Speaker, that will protect American 
families. They will be frozen out by this bill, because this bill will 
limit regulations that ensure American families that their food is 
safe, that their drinking water is clean, and their airplanes are up to 
snuff.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not just hurt families, it hurts the 
business people who play by the rules. By making the moratorium 
retroactive to November 20, this bill punishes businesses that have 
worked to comply with regulations, and that is just not fair.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is too far-reaching to be slapped together 
this quickly and without opportunity for improvement. It needs to be 
amended, and 7 hours is just not enough time to do it.
        Members Shut out By the 10-hour Time Cap, 104th Congress

  Mr. Speaker, this is a list of Members who were not allowed to offer 
amendments to major legislation because the 10-hour time cap on 
amendments had expired. These amendments were also preprinted in the 
Congressional Record.

       4H.R. 728--Law Enforcement Block Grants: Mr. Bereuter, Mr. 
     Kasich, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Watt, 
     Ms. Waters, Mr. Wise, Ms. Furse, and Mr. Fields.
       H.R. 7--National Security Revitalization Act: Ms. Lofgren, 
     Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Sanders (2), Mr. 
     Schiff, Ms. Schroeder, and Ms. Waters.

      AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON VOTING UNDER THE THREE RESTRICTIVE TIME CAP PROCEDURES IN THE 104TH CONGRESS      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Time on  
          Bill No.                    Bill title           Rollcalls            Time spent             amends   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 667...................  Violent Criminal                       8  2 hrs 40 min...............  7 hrs 20    
                              Incarceration Act.                                                     min.       
H.R. 728...................  Block grants...............            7  2 hrs 20 min...............  7 hrs 40    
                                                                                                     min.       
H.R. 7.....................  National security                     11  3 hrs 40 min...............  6 hrs 20    
                              revitalization.                                                        min.       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Process used for floor   Amendment
        Bill No.                    Title                Resolution No.           consideration        in order 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1..................  Compliance..............  H. Res. 6..............  Closed.................  None      
H. Res. 6...............  Opening Day Rules         H. Res. 5..............  Closed; contained a      None      
                           Package.                                           closed rule on H.R. 1             
                                                                              within the closed rule.           
H.R. 5..................  Unfunded Mandates.......  H. Res. 38.............  Restrictive; Motion      NA        
                                                                              adopted over                      
                                                                              Democratic objection              
                                                                              in the Committee of               
                                                                              the Whole to limit                
                                                                              debate on section 4;              
                                                                              preprinting gets                  
                                                                              preference.                       
H.J. Res. 2.............  Balanced Budget.........  H. Res. 44.............  Restrictive; only        2R; 4D    
                                                                              certain substitutes.              
H. Res. 43..............  Committee Hearings        H. Res. 43 (OJ)........  Restrictive; considered  NA        
                           Scheduling.                                        in House no amendments.           
H.R. 2..................  Line Item Veto..........  H. Res. 55.............  Open; preprinting gets   NA        
                                                                              preference.                       
H.R. 665................  Victim Restitution Act    H. Res. 61.............  Open; preprinting gets   NA        
                           of 1995.                                           preference.                       
H.R. 666................  Exclusionary Rule Reform  H. Res. 60.............  Open; preprinting gets   NA        
                           Act of 1995.                                       preference.                       
H.R. 667................  Violent Criminal          H. Res. 63.............  Restrictive; 10 hr.      NA        
                           Incarceration Act of                               time cap on amendments.           
                           1995.                                                                                
H.R. 668................  The Criminal Alien        H. Res. 69.............  Open; preprinting gets   NA        
                           Deportation Improvement                            preference; contains              
                           Act.                                               self-executing                    
                                                                              provision.                        
H.R. 728................  Local Government Law      H. Res. 79.............  Restrictive; 10 hr.      NA        
                           Enforcement Block                                  time cap on                       
                           Grants.                                            amendments;                       
                                                                              preprinting gets                  
                                                                              preference.                       
H.R. 7..................  National Security         H. Res. 83.............  Restrictive; 10 hr.      NA        
                           Revitalization Act.                                time cap on                       
                                                                              amendments; pre-                  
                                                                              printing gets                     
                                                                              preference.                       
H.R. 729................  Death Penalty/Habeas....  NA.....................  Restrictive; brought up  NA        
                                                                              under UC with a 6 hr.             
                                                                              time cap on amendments.           
S. 2....................  Senate Compliance.......  NA.....................  Closed; Put on           None      
                                                                              suspension calendar               
                                                                              over Democratic                   
                                                                              objection.                        
H.R. 831................  To Permanently Extend     H. Res. 88.............  Restrictive; makes in    ID        
                           the Health Insurance                               order only the Gibbons            
                           Deduction for the Self-                            amendment; waives all             
                           Employed.                                          points of order;                  
                                                                              contains self-                    
                                                                              executing provision.              
H.R. 830................  The Paperwork Reduction   H. Res. 91.............  Open...................  NA        
                           Act.                                                                                 
H.R. 889................  Emergency Supplemental/   H. Res. 92.............  Restrictive; makes in    ID        
                           Rescinding Certain                                 order only the Obey               
                           Budget Authority.                                  substitute.                       
H.R. 450................  Regulatory Moratorium...  H. Res. 93.............  Restrictive; 10 hr.      NA        
                                                                              time cap on                       
                                                                              amendments;                       
                                                                              preprinting gets                  
                                                                              preference.                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 77% restrictive; 23% open. These figures use Republican scoring methods from the 103d Congress. Not       
  included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101,    
  H.R. 400, H.R. 440.                                                                                           

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement here in which I really 
wanted to talk about the bill that is going to come before us. When I 
came here 16 years ago, one of my main purposes was to shrink the size 
of this Federal Government, to reduce the power of the Federal 
Government, and return it back to the private sector and to local and 
State governments.
  I really wanted to talk about that, but I was just so taken by my 
good friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Rules, who is now 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, when he referred 
to this rule as the most egregious. What a difference an election 
makes.
  I am reading here from the activity report of the Committee on Rules, 
which the former chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], filed at the end of the 103d Congress. Let me just quote my 
good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  [[Page H2076]] He says:

       An overall time cap allows the House to manage its time, to 
     make more reliable its schedule, and to provide some 
     certainty about when measures will be on and off the floor. 
     The printing requirement does not afford the same time 
     certainty, since there is no way to know in advance how many 
     amendments will be submitted and printed, or how many printed 
     amendments will actually be offered,

And he goes on and on and on. That was the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], the gentleman we just heard, who now refers to this rule 
as egregious.
  Let me read from the statement of the now-former majority leader of 
the Democratic Party, who is now the minority leader of the Democratic 
Party, when he appeared before the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], myself, and others who served on the Speaker's joint committee 
to reform this Congress.
  The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] said, ``I believe we 
should support the Rules Committee when it puts time constraints on 
bills, as this provides more certainly for scheduling legislation.'' He 
was very wise.
  Mr. Speaker, let me now read from the minority whip, who used to be 
the majority whip. This is what he had to say when we took up the State 
and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] said, ``The rule limits to 4 
hours on this very important bill, to 4 hours, the time for 
consideration of the bill for amendment under the 5-minute rule.''
  This is what he said about the rule: ``This is a simple, open rule. I 
urge my colleagues to support it,'' and we did. We in the minority 
supported it, because it was an open rule with time constraints.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
standing over there, said something when we debated the American 
Heritage Act, which would have usurped local authority in my district. 
I sort of resented that, but I went on to support the rule. However, my 
friend the gentleman from Massachusetts, said at that time, ``The rule 
provides that each section shall be considered as read. Only those 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration 
of the bill will be in order, and debate on consideration of this bill 
for amendment is limited to 3 hours. This is a good rule,'' said the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. ``I urge adoption of the rule.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to move legislation through this 
Congress and to be as open and fair as we can and maintain comity 
between the two sides. That is what we are trying to do.
  That is why we have had such overwhelming Democrat support for all of 
these issues during this first 50 days, overwhelming Democrat support 
for our positions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of yet another open rule from 
the Rules Committee.
  I also rise today in strong support of regulatory relief for 
businesses around the country.
  H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, will stop the 
regulators in this town cold. The bill deserves strong support, from 
both sides of the aisle.
  A regulatory moratorium is clearly necessary to halt the big-
government regulations spewing forth from the Clinton administration.
  The rule before us is a modified open rule, providing for a 10-hour 
amendment process. The rule does not set forth which amendments can and 
cannot be offered, it simply says that Members who have amendments 
should get organized in advance. We have been fair, recognizing the 
public's desire that we move our contract rapidly to the floor.
  Yesterday in the Rules Committee, my good friend Mr. Moakley stated 
that a rule with a time cap was labeled a closed rule by Republicans 
when we were in the minority.
  Many things have changed in the last few months, but our definitions 
for kinds of special rules have remained the same. For reference 
purposes, I would point Members to the charts we inserted in the Record 
during the last Congress comparing open vs. restrictive rules from the 
95th to the 103d Congress.
  The modified open rule before us today is appropriate for the fair 
and orderly consideration of the moratorium legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, when House and Senate Republicans were preparing to take 
control of our respective Chambers in December, we wrote to President 
Clinton and asked that he impose a moratorium on regulations by 
Executive order.
  Since the President spurned our offer, it is necessary to pass this 
legislation and take a much needed time-out from new regulations. 
During that time, the Republican majority will schedule a comprehensive 
bill to reform the Federal rulemaking process.
  Commonsense reforms such as requiring a risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis for new regulations will be brought to the floor.
  A thorough analysis of the costs resulting from the loss of property 
rights will not be left out of this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, like so many of the Contract With America items, this is 
a bipartisan bill.
  Several Democrats voted to report the bill from the Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee, and other Democrats opposed the various 
exemption amendments offered in the committee markup.
  Like all of the other contract for America items, I expect this 
legislation to attain substantial bipartisan support upon final 
passage. As was the case with the unfunded mandates bill, a bloc of 
liberal Democrats may choose to offer countless exemption amendments to 
H.R. 450, the cumulative effect of which will be to gut the bill if 
those amendments pass.
  But those who seek to relieve the multitude of private businesses 
that are struggling with needless Government regulation will not be 
deterred.
  To the small businessman attempting to stay afloat in a sea of 
regulation--help is on the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the bill.

             OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-104TH CONG.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Open rules       Restrictive rules
  Congress (years)   Total rules ---------------------------------------
                      granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).....          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).....          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).....          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).....          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).....          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)....          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)....          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).....          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).....          104      31         30       73         70 
104th (1995-96)....           13       8         62        5         38 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported   
  from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration  
  of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive 
  points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged
  are also not counted.                                                 
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane    
  amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with  
  the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules  
  as a percent of total rules granted.                                  
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments     
  which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified
  closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing  
  for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the     
  Whole. The parenthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a       
  percent of total rules granted.                                       
                                                                        
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-   
  103d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 104th    
  Cong., through Feb. 20, 1995.                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      


                                                                                                                                                        
[[Page H2077]]
                                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.--Continued                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).  
                                           Authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).  
                                           Banking.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept.           N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Reorganization.                                                                                              
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994...  MO        H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste    22 (D-15; R-7)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994...  O         H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).  
H. Res. 562, Oct. 3, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 5044: Amer. Heritage      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Oct. 5, 1994).    
                                           Areas.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 563, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 301: SoC Re:      N/A.............  N/A.......................  F: 83-339 (Oct. 5, 1994).        
                                           Entitlements.                                                                                                
H. Res. 565, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        S. 455: Payments in Lieu of    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 384-28 (Oct. 6, 1994).        
                                           Taxes.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 570, Oct. 5, 1994.....  MC        H. J. Res. 416: U.S. in Haiti  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 241-182 (Oct. 6, 1994).       
H. Res. 576, Oct. 6, 1994.....  C         H.R. 5231: Presidio            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Oct. 7, 1994).    
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

 a process perspective on the contract's first 50-days, wednesday, 
                           february 22, 1995

  Mr. Speaker, I think is is appropriate that we should be making day 
50 of our 100-day Contract With America on the birthday of the Father 
of our Country, George Washington.
  In his first inaugural address, Washington said that, ``The 
preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the 
republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps 
as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the 
American people.''
  Last November the American people said loud and clear that they 
wanted a change in their government, and entrusted control over their 
Congress to the Republican party. In the House the change was 
especially dramatic because Democrats had controlled the institution 
for the last 40 years running.
  Public trust and confidence in Congress had fallen to all-time lows. 
Our job approval rating was somewhere around 18 to 20 percent. Every 
public opinion poll yielded the same results: by overwhelming 
majorities, the people thought we had lost touch with them and were no 
longer responsive to their views and needs.
  The Republican Party offered a bold alternative to the longstanding 
orthodoxy of the ruling Democrats. We promised, in our Contract With 
America, less Federal Government, less spending, less taxes and a 
return of power, responsibility and decisionmaking to the people and 
the State and local governments closest to them.
  In short, our contract recognized what George Washington articulated 
so well back in 1789, that the survival of our republican form 
[[Page H2078]] of government, this great experiment was dependent on 
returning it to the hands of the American people to which it had been 
originally entrusted.
  And last November the American people spoke with one voice in saying 
they were ready and willing to take back their government and make it 
once again the servant of the people and not their master.
  In his farwell address as President, in 1796, Washington said 
something else that bears noting in today's context, and that is that, 
and I quote, ``The basis of our political system is the right of the 
people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.''
  And by that I think he meant not only the direct amendment of our 
Constitution, as important as that right is to the survival of our 
system of government, but also the composition, structure and processes 
of that government.
  Not only did the American people make a major alteration in the 
composition of their government last November; they also committed to a 
new way of thinking about the size and role of government and how it 
operates.
  And I am speaking here not just about the executive branch which 
tends to be the major focus of our attentions, but also the legislative 
branch.
  Just as our Founders made the Congress the first branch of Government 
in the Constitution, House Republicans in our Contract With America, 
put the reform and renewal of the Congress first in our commitment to 
``restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected 
representatives.''
  In that contract we promised, and I quote, ``to bring the House a new 
majority that will transform the way Congress works.* * * To restore 
accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. 
To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.''
  To that end we promised that on opening day we would pass eight 
specific reforms ``aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the 
American people in their government.''
  As you are aware, in the longest opening day of the Congress ever, 
lasting from noon on Wednesday, January 4 until 2:24 a.m. on Thursday, 
January 5, we kept that promise by thoroughly debating and voting on 
those 8 reforms and some 23 other changes to House rules. In addition, 
we passed the Congressional Accountability Act which applies the same 
workplace laws to the Congress as we impose on the private sector.
  Among those opening day House reforms were provisions to cut 
committee staff by at least one-third; eliminate 3 committees and over 
20 subcommittees; abolish proxy voting; open committee meeting and 
hearings to the public and media; place term limits on committee and 
subcommittee chairmen, and on the Speaker; require a three-fifths vote 
to increase income tax rates and prohibit retroactive income tax rate 
increases; require a comprehensive audit of House books; and require 
truth in budgeting.
  I am proud that the Republican membership of this committee played a 
major role in helping to draft those House reforms last fall and in 
managing that package on the marathon opening day.
  As you know, the Contract went on to promise in that in the first 100 
days we would pass 10 major pieces of legislation. We will not go over 
all the same ground that our leadership did earlier today in reciting 
the progress made to date on our contract legislation. Instead, we want 
to make a few points about how the process has worked to date in the 
consideration of those contract bills.
  Contrary to what you may have read in some newspapers, the contract 
did not promise that all contract bills would be considered under open 
rules. What the contract did say was that, and I quote, ``we shall 
bring to the House floor the following bills, each to be given full and 
open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote.* * *''
  However, the commitment was clearly there to fairness and openness in 
debt and voting. There were some serious observers of Congress who 
suggested that our opening day reforms were at odds with the commitment 
to passing all this major legislation in 100 days. One observer even 
recommended that we not make our open House reforms effective until 
after the 100 days had passed.
  Our leadership and conference rejected such suggestions out of hand, 
knowing full well that things would be more difficult to pass the more 
open the process was, but that we would be considered hypocrites if we 
did not apply our own process reforms to our most important legislative 
measures.
  I am proud to report that we have succeeded far beyond most 
observers' expectations in keeping the process open while still staying 
on schedule in passing our contract bills. And I am referring both to 
the committee process in reporting bills as well as to the House floor 
process in considering them.
  I think it is important to note that the contract did not promise 
that we would pass each of our bills in the exact form as drafted in 
our contract. Our leadership rightfully recognized that an open process 
would mean changes in those bills both in committee and on the floor. 
That is how democracy should work.
  Contrary to the baseless charge of some in the other party, we are 
not walking blindly in lock-step or like lemmings over a cliff in 
passing these bills without change. The strength of our system is in 
its deliberative nature and its effect in improving legislation at 
every stage of the process. That in turn helps to ensure bipartisan and 
public support for the final products.
  Significant amendments have been successfully offered by Democrats 
and Republicans alike in committee and on the floor, and the bills have 
consequently gone on to be reported and passed with large, bipartisan 
majorities.
  Our own Rules Committee, for instance, had original jurisdiction over 
both the unfunded mandate reform bill and the legislative line-item 
veto bill. We adopted, on a bipartisan basis procedural changes in 
those bills in committee, and further amended them on the floor, again 
with bipartisan support. The same was true in the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee with which we shared jurisdiction over those bills.
  That was true as well at the committee level in other committees 
reporting other contract bills, and in the further amendment of those 
bills on the House floor.
  Of the first 13 special rules reported by the Rules Committee through 
the end of last week, 8 or 62 percent were completely open, 3 others 
were modified open, meaning in this case that they had time limits on 
the amendment process, and just 2 were modified closed.
  Contrast that, if you will, with the first 13 special rules reported 
by the Democrats at the beginning of the last Congress. Only 3 or 23 
percent were completely open, while the other 10 were either closed or 
modified closed.
  In looking at the amendment process that has taken place so far this 
year under those first 13 special rules, we have found that a total of 
148 amendments have been offered on the House floor, of which 74 were 
adopted. Of those 74 amendments adopted, 38 were offered by Democrats.
  So, I think we can say that the process to date has been relatively 
open, fair, and bipartisan. And that in turn helps to account for the 
fact that not only were 9 of those 13 rules adopted by a voice vote, 
but most of the bills have also been passed by large, bipartisan 
majorities. We are demonstrating both a new openness and responsiveness 
to the will of the American people that cuts across party lines.
  Let me simply conclude by saying that working under the time 
constraints of the 100-day contract has been exciting and exhilarating, 
but also difficult and challenging for our committees and House 
membership. We are obviously working long and hard hours. That in 
itself produces some tension and conflict in the process.
  There have clearly been times when our process reforms have run up 
against the necessities of getting bills to the floor and getting them 
passed. There have been some legitimate complaints along the way. But 
there have also been a host of frivolous and hypocritical complaints 
from the minority, especially when you consider the restrictive and 
abusive procedures those same Democrats foisted on us when they were in 
the majority.
  But, from this committee's perspective, if our open House reforms can 
work in this time-sensitive environment, as for the most part they 
have, then they will have passed their most difficult test.
  The ultimate litmus test is in the quality, approval, and acceptance 
of the legislation we finally pass. The ultimate judges of that will be 
the American people. And the fact that our job approval rating by the 
people has more than doubled since last November, from 20 to 42 percent 
according to one recent poll, is the most telling tribute that we are 
not only doing the right thing, but doing it in the right way.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES, 104TH CONGRESS                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (date rept.)     Rule type               Bill No. and subject                 Disposition of rule   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)....  O.............  H.R. 5--Unfunded Mandate Reform...........  A: 350-71 (1/19/95).      
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)....  MC............  H. Con. Res. 17--Social Security; H.J.      A: 255-172 (1/25/95).     
                                           Res. 1--Balanced Budget Amndt..                                      
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)....  O.............  H.R. 101--Land Transfer, Taos Pueblo        A: voice vote (2/1/95).   
                                           Indians.                                                             
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)....  O.............  H.R. 400--Land Exchange, Arctic Nat'l.      A: voice vote (2/1/95).   
                                           Park & Preserve.                                                     
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)....  O.............  H.R. 440--Land Conveyance, Butte County,    A. voice vote (2/1/95).   
                                           Calif..                                                              


                                                                                                                
[[Page H2079]]
                            OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (date rept.)     Rule type               Bill No. and subject                 Disposition of rule   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).....  O.............  H.R. 2--Line Item Veto....................  A: voice vote (2/2/95).   
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).....  O.............  H.R. 665--Victim Restitution..............  A: voice vote (2/7/95).   
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).....  O.............  H.R. 666--Exclusionary Rule Reform........  A: voice vote (2/7/95).   
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).....  MO............  H.R. 667--Violent Criminal Incarceration..  A: voice vote (2/9/95).   
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).....  O.............  H.R. 668--Criminal Alien Deportation......  A: voice vote (2/10/95).  
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)....  MO............  H.R. 728--Law Enforcement Block Grants....  A: voice vote (2/10/95).  
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)....  MO............  H.R. 7--National Security Revitalization..  PQ: 229-100; A: 227-127 (2/
                                                                                       15/95).                  
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)....  MC............  H.R. 831--Health Insurance Deductibility..  A: xxx-xxx.               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        AMENDMENTS OFFERED TO BILLS IN HOUSE UNDER SPECIAL RULES, 104TH CONGRESS                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Bill and subject                            Rule and type              Amendments offered            Adopted              Rejected      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5--Unfunded Mandates.......................  H. Res. 38--Open................  53 (R:7;D:46)...........  17 (R:7;D:10).......  36 (R:0;D:36).      
H.R. Res. 1--Balanced Budget....................  H. Res. 44--Mod. Closed.........  6 (R:2;D:4).............  2 (R:2;D:0).........  4 (R:0;D:4).        
H.R. 101--Land Transfer.........................  H. Res. 51--Open................  0.......................  0...................  0.                  
H.R. 400--Land Exchange.........................  H. Res. 52--Open................  0.......................  0...................  0.                  
H.R. 440--Land Conveyance.......................  H. Res. 53--Open................  0.......................  0...................  0.                  
H.R. 2--Line Item Veto..........................  H. Res. 55--Open................  17 (R:3;D:14)...........  6 (R:2;D:4).........  11 (R:1;D:10).      
H.R. 665--Victim Restitution....................  H. Res. 60--Open................  1 (R:0;D:1).............  1 (R:0;D:1).........  0.                  
H.R. 666--Exclusionary Rule.....................  H. Res. 61--Open................  6 (R:0;D:6).............  5 (R:0;D:5).........  1(R:0;D:1).         
H.R. 667--Prisons...............................  H. Res. 63--Mod. Open...........  23 (R:11;D:12)..........  14 (R:11;D:3).......  9 (R:0;D:9).        
H.R. 668--Alien Deportation.....................  H. Res. 69--Open................  5 (R:4;D:1).............  5 (R:4;D:1).........  0.                  
H.R. 728--Law Block Grants......................  H. Res. 79--Mod. Open...........  19 (R:7;D:12)...........  13 (R:6;D:7)........  6 (R:1;D:5).        
H.R. 7--National Security Act...................  H. Res. 83--Mod. Open...........  17 (R:5;D:12)...........  11 (R:4;D:7)........  6 (R:1;D:5).        
H.R. 831--Health Deduction......................  H. Res. 88--Mod. Closed.........  1 (R:0;D:1).............  0...................  1 (R:0;D:1).        
                                                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    148 (R:39;D:109)........  74 (R:36;D:38)......  74 (R:3;D:71)       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Record, Daily Digest.                                                                                                             

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
for giving me the credit for saying, ``Mr. Speaker, this is one of the 
more egregious rules reported by the Committee on Rules.'' Actually, I 
was quoting the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. Those were not 
my words.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from New York, knows 
that, of course, I admit putting out closed rules, but I never put out 
a closed rule and said ``This is a wide open rule.'' I would just like 
some truth in explaining what kind of rule we are putting out.
  We have all kinds of rules, but they cannot say that a rule that has 
restrictions by time, or on amendments, or caps on time, is an open 
rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] has expired.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We never promised to do open rules, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman did. 
The whole plan of the Republican Party was every day to get up and talk 
about the Committee on Rules and the restrictive rules. We never said 
``This is an open rule'' when it was a closed rule.
  They just went back as soon as they got elected and changed the 
dictionary. It says ``Open rules. Any rule that the Committee on Rules 
puts out under the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will be an 
open rule.'' I just want to be fair with the American people and tell 
them what kinds of rules we have.
  I agree that they are going to need closed rules, that they are going 
to need modified open rules. I agree they may have to do certain things 
to get legislation through. But please do not bring every rule out here 
and say ``This is a wide open rule.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman is going to do what we 
did when we were in the minority. We supported every single one of 
those open rules that had time constraints on them.
  Let me read this briefly: The Employment Retirement Security Act 
passed on a voice vote, we supported it; the Black Lung Benefits 
Restoration Act, with time constraints, we supported it on a voice 
vote; the Presidio Management bill we supported on a voice vote; and 
the American Heritage, as I said before, we did.
  Let me just say to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
because we need to get serious, there have been 178 amendments so far 
allowed during this first 13 bills. Seventy-eight of those amendments 
were Democrat amendments. Of those amendments that were adopted by this 
House, 74 in total, 38 were by Democrats, and we voted for them.
  Mr. Speaker, that is about as open as we can get, and fair, and to 
keep this body moving.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not disagree with 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. There is only one 
disagreement. When we were passing out the same kind of rules you are 
passing out, we were gagging the American public. We were keeping 
Members of the House from expressing their will. ``That cruel Committee 
on Rules, another closed rule.'' If we put a period in it, it was a 
closed rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my friend 
offered one of my brilliant quotes. I would like to reciprocate by 
offering one of his brilliant quotes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I want to say to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], it was an outstanding quote.
  Mr. DREIER. This is a quote from October 5, 1994, last fall, and this 
was during the debate on House Resolution 562, and you, Mr. Chairman, 
called it an open rule, only those amendments printed in the 
Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill would be in 
order and debate on consideration of the bill for the amendment was 
limited to 3 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the 
chairman at that time, referred to this as an open rule. I do not know 
if he said a wide open rule but it was called an open rule at that 
point. It seems to me that we have really got to underscore that under 
the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the 
chairman, we have in fact created an opportunity for amendments to take 
place, and one of the distinguished Members on your side of the aisle 
said to me not too long ago, the average American out there believes 
very sincerely that we should within a 10-hour period be able to 
address a lot of these issues, and I am convinced that this is the 
responsible way to deal with it.
  I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has done a marvelous 
job of managing this, and I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the consideration 
of H.R. 450, the regulatory moratorium bill.
  [[Page H2080]] I oppose this rule because it puts a time limit on the 
consideration of the bill. Based upon the use of this time limit device 
on other bills, it is very likely that important amendments will be 
kept out of the debate, because sufficient time to debate them will 
expire.
  The use of a time limit on this bill is particularly inappropriate 
for the following three reasons:
  First, H.R. 450 is not a part of the Contract With America. Arguments 
about the need to complete consideration of the contract in 100 days do 
not apply to this bill. In fact, consideration of this bill limits the 
amount of time for the consideration of other aspects of the contract, 
so rather than limiting debate time, the moratorium bill should be 
deferred until after the 100 days.
  Second, both Chairman Clinger and I requested a totally open rule. At 
our markup, a number of amendments were not offered, because the 
chairman gave his assurance at the markup that he would request an open 
rule, and that members would be protected. However, the Rules Committee 
has ignored the request of the chairman and myself, and now amendments 
will not be protected if time runs out.
  Third, although this bill consists of just a few pages, its reach is 
infinitely broader. It places a retroactive moratorium on all 
regulations and regulatory activity and affects every agency of the 
country, and every law of the Nation. In the past several weeks I have 
learned about problems this bill could cause in a variety of agencies 
administering laws written in all of our House committees. This bill 
was considered in great haste, and we keep discovering new problems 
caused by its ambiguities. Limiting floor consideration will mean that 
these problems cannot be corrected and confusion will reign supreme.
  During the consideration of the bill in the committee we received a 
wave of lobbying by tax lawyers, who felt that the bill would 
unnecessarily hinder their profession, because tax interpretations 
would be delayed. So the committee made an exemption for tax 
interpretations.
  As we continued to examine the bill after the committee 
consideration, we kept learning about other problems created by the 
bill. There were HUD regulations to help the elderly get housing. There 
were disability benefits for veterans. There were duck hunting 
regulations. However, those who wanted to exempt these regulations did 
not have high powered tax lawyers to sponsor their cause. As a result, 
we will create havoc, if this bill passes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said this bill is not a part of any Contract With 
America. It was crafted after the election, and could best be called a 
Contract With Special Interests. The Republican leadership is trying to 
squeeze this bill into a schedule that is already far too rushed. They 
apparently hope that the sooner the bill is passed, the fewer flaws we 
will find.
  None of us wants foolish government regulations. Similarly, none of 
us wants foolish legislation that is poorly crafted. This bill is far 
too broad, and its effects are far too unknown. I urge defeat of the 
rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], who is a welcome addition to the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 450.
  As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my friend, described in his 
opening statement, this is a very fair rule. Whether you want to buy 
into the debate whether this is an open rule, a wide open rule, or a 
modified open rule, I think we are never going to decide on these 
semantics between the two sides of the aisle. So let us just call this 
a fair rule because this is what it is.
  When the Committee on Rules met yesterday morning, there was some 
thoughtful discussion on the pros and cons of limiting this debate on 
the amendment process to 10 hours. Let me say that I understand and 
appreciate the concerns that were raised. But there is nothing wrong 
with trying to impose a better sense of organization and time 
management on the overall amendment process that we have here in the 
House of Representatives. Since few Republican amendments are expected, 
the 10-hour time limit affords the Democratic leadership an opportunity 
to prioritize their Members' amendments as much as possible and to 
utilize an en bloc format whenever it is practical. There is no excuse 
for time to run out if time is properly managed.
  In the 8 days we spent debating unfunded mandates, it taught us that 
discussing duplicative and overlapping amendments is not the most 
productive use of this House's time.
  In addition to supporting the rule, Mr. Speaker, I also support the 
underlying legislation. Too often the debate over economic growth 
focuses only on the size of the deficit or on taxes. Escalating 
regulatory costs are often left out of this discussion. But make no 
mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, excessive Federal regulations have a 
tremendous impact on economic growth and the heavy burden of increasing 
regulation is ever present in our society. Job loss, reduced 
competitiveness and the diminished productivity are the real costs 
associated with runaway Government regulations.
  The mayor of my hometown, Columbus, OH, recently observed that unless 
Federal regulations are cut back and based on common sense and measured 
risk, the waste of billions of dollars of misguided, one-size-fits-all 
mandates from Washington will cause a public backlash against 
legitimate Federal regulation.
  I wholeheartedly agree. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, in moving this bill forward, in 
keeping with our contract and its commitment to easing Federal 
regulatory burdens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule so that 
the House can move one step forward to substantive regulatory reform.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that the gentlewoman just said that under the prescribed rules 
if the people use their time wisely that there is no reason everybody 
could not be heard. I would just like to bring to her attention on H.R. 
728, the law enforcement block grants, that because the time ran out, 
that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Serrano], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters], the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Wise], the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] were shut out.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, he can add my 
name to that, too. I had an amendment, too.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], who also was shut out.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is another example 
of gagging Members of the House. There are 435 of us. There are only 
going to be a few of us permitted to offer amendments and speak on the 
bill of moratorium on regulations. That is not fair.
  All we ask for, some of us, of this House, is not just comity but 
also fairness, and our ability to be able to express our ideas in this 
great body, this bastion of democracy. What this rule does is no 
different than many other rules we have seen come out of this Committee 
on Rules headed by the gentleman from New York that has restricted 
Members' ability to express their ideas on the floor of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, for a long time, I always wondered about the other body 
and their deliberative process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I will not yield at this time. If I have time left, I 
will yield. Yesterday and the day before, I asked many Members of your 
side to yield and they refused to yield.
  Mr. SOLOMON. But I always yielded to the gentleman.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I will yield when I finish my speaking if the gentleman 
will permit.
  [[Page H2081]] The other body many times takes the long deliberative 
process. I have always felt that they should have some kind of rules as 
to how that other body operates, the time they take with legislation. 
But the more I see of this House of Representatives under this 
majority, I say that maybe the Senate, or the other body, has a lot 
more going for them, because all they want to do here is cram it. You 
cannot express your idea. You got elected by your people back home, but 
try and get recognized on this floor for debate or to offer an 
amendment. You are not going to get to.
  They say at the beginning, the gentleman from New York, I will 
mention his name again, the day after we were sworn in, back on a 
Thursday afternoon, in this same Chamber, me standing right here in the 
same place, that gentleman down in the well right there, and he had a 
chart, and he was talking about the process of a bill through the 
Congress and how he had to have time and he was going to give open 
rules.
  We saw an open rule yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker, and it did not 
take 10 hours. Some bills will take 2 hours. Some bills may take 12 
hours. I have been here and you have been here when you have seen 
legislation take all week, under Democrats. I have yet to see one of 
your bills take a week.
  I have yet to see one of your bills take 3 days, except unfunded 
mandates, and that was restricted on a Monday evening to 10 minutes on 
each amendment. So very few bills have had a true open rule.
  And what is this bill all about that we are going to take up under 
this rule? It is about some special interests.
  If we ever needed something called lobbying reform, and I do not see 
that coming, lobbying reform, this bill and a few others we have been 
taking up, even the one we did last night had to be cleaned up in 
committee, there was a special provision in there specifically for West 
Publishing Company, stuck in, other Members were not supposed to catch 
it, it was supposed to sneak through, and I wonder what lobbyist paid 
off what staff member or what Member on the other side, on the majority 
side, in order to get that special little treatment in there in that 
bill.
  What have we got in this bill? We have got things for other people. I 
know that Tyson's down in Arkansas is going to love this bill. They are 
going to love it, because it means that the regulations pertaining to 
what is fresh and frozen poultry going into California is going to have 
to be put in abeyance under this bill and they are going to continue to 
sell it into California. Tyson's is going to love this bill.
  How many others are going to love this bill? I am sure there are a 
whole bunch of big corporations out there that just love this bill. It 
is made for big corporations, for big business. That is who this bill 
is made for.
  Later on, we are going to have a tax bill that is made for the 
wealthy, just like this bill is made for the wealthy.
  In the meantime, what are they saying? ``Well, we're going to cut 
such things as school lunches.'' One thing I wanted to point out to the 
Members of the majority, they keep talking about their great contract, 
I call it a Contract on America. I don't think it is one with America. 
It was rejected by the people of my district, I want you to know that.

                              {time}  1130

  It was a campaign issue in my district. My people rejected it and 
reject it today because they see what that contract is to their people, 
to rural America. It is a ruination of the economy and the people of 
rural America, of the poor people, and it gives to the rich.
  It is nothing, that contract is nothing more than good old Robin Hood 
in reverse, take from the poor, give to the rich.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from greater downtown San Dimas, CA, the 
vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this modified, open rule, and I do 
so to clarify exactly what it is that we are offering. It is a modified 
open rule. Not a wide open rule, not an open rule, a modified open 
rule. It is modified because we do have an outside time limit.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from South Boston.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from 
California has been listening to my remarks, that they have not been 
just floating out there. I agree this is a modified open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. I will say to my friend in reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Speaker, I always listen to my friend and I look forward to having his 
vote in support of this modified open rule.
  And I should say that as we look at this question we should recognize 
that truth in marketing or truth in advertising has been brought 
forward by the 104th Congress, but in the 103d Congress a rule that was 
put into place to deal with ERISA in 1993, which had a 4-hour time 
limit to deal with an issue as complex as ERISA, managed by my very 
good friend from California [Mr. Beilenson], was described as an open 
rule and, in fact, when the rule came out it was labeled an open rule, 
not a modified open rule as we do on this side, it was labeled an open 
rule and it had constraints on it on an issue as complex as that.
  So I would argue that we on our side are being very forthright. And I 
have to say in response to my friend from Hannibal who was speaking 
about this issue of having greater opportunities to debate under 
Democrat rules than they have under ours, it is absolutely preposterous 
to hear arguments like that.
  Anyone who has observed this institution over the last 50 days has 
concluded, and I know my friend from California, [Mr. Beilenson] has 
observed several times up in the Committee on Rules that we are trying 
to be more open, we are trying desperately to allow Members to have the 
opportunity to participate, and offer amendments. And we are doing it. 
We are doing it, based on the track record we have.
  My friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], indicated that 
we debated measures for weeks under the Democrats. We spent 3 weeks on 
the unfunded mandates legislation. If anyone questions that, I 
recommend that they talk to Chairman Clinger or Mrs. Collins. It was a 
long and drawn-out process but we have gone through that. So we are 
being more open. I think that the American people have understood that 
it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that by any stretch of the 
imagination we are being less open than has been the case in the past.
  I strongly support this modified open rule and I hope my colleagues 
will join in supporting it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter], a former member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is another rush job, another example of our 
hit-and-run legislation that we have gotten too much of lately. The 
time limit in the rule continues a disturbing pattern we have seen that 
has been developing not only in rules on the floor but in the 
committees.
  The process is too sloppy; it is fast and it is arbitrary, and we go 
through bills in a flash and hope that the Senate will be able to fix 
them.
  I think this rule is further proof that the Contract With America is 
more concerned with flashy public relations than sound public policy.
  A rushed process has left this bill with many flaws. And now we have 
a 10-hour time cap that makes it impossible to even talk about fixing 
its problems.
  To add insult to injury, the rule counts the time that it takes to 
vote, again taking away time from this important bill which it is not 
too broad to say is a matter of life and death.
  It is not as if the minority is acting irresponsibly. We have 
coordinated our efforts to limit the number of amendments in interest 
of efficiency. For example, I am offering a three-part amendment with 
three of my colleagues, and despite these combinations it is going to 
be impossible for us to address all of our concerns in the time 
available. And we have plenty of concerns.
  [[Page H2082]] In order to fix a few problematic regulations the bill 
shuts down the entire executive branch. In the process it delays or 
destroys many good regulations, and we are going to offer some 
amendments to try to affect some of the problems.
  For example, my amendment would allow an improvement in the meat 
inspection system to go forward during the moratorium. I have rarely 
seen such poorly designed definitions in the bill, and even the bill's 
author cannot explain the exemption definitions clearly enough to 
determine which regulations are covered and which are not. The prospect 
of judicial review means a Federal judge could slice this fuzzy 
language apart, and every time the administration interprets a 
definition one way, a lawyer will drag the issue into court arguing for 
a different interpretation. There it will linger for months or years 
costing money, time and perhaps lives, even after the moratorium is 
ended.
  Finally and most importantly, H.R. 450 threatens the health and well-
being of every American. Every American is protected by regulations 
every day. We take it for granted, but these quiet rules ensure our 
health and safety.
  We know, for example, that the Clean Water Act has made it possible 
for us throughout this country to have clean water in every part of the 
United States. The life-saving regulations with clean water, clean air, 
food inspection, nuclear plant safety, airline safety, all will be put 
on hold by this legislation.
  Every day, from bad meat in the United States, 11 people die and 
13,000 become sick because of the pathogens in the meat.
  The scope of the problem demands action, not delay. We should not 
stop the proposed improvements dead in their tracks. Delay that is 
caused by the moratorium would sentence 3,421 more Americans to die 
needlessly.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule continues our present practice of hit-and-run 
legislating. The new leadership cares more about sound bites than 
substance, and that is why I will vote against this rule and urge all 
of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, we have been inserting the 
voting records on all of the rules from last year. The gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter], from my State, was a member of our committee, 
and all of the speakers who have risen today in opposition to this 
rule, all voted down the line for every single one of the restrictive 
rules last year.
  Let me say one more thing. You know we took time to ask the Democrat 
minority, to ask the conservative Democrats, to ask the Republicans how 
much time they needed. The conservative Democrats needed no time, they 
are satisfied with this bill; the Republicans needed no time for 
amendments on this bill. Therefore, there is a handful of liberals who 
have a few amendments they would like to offer and they want to take 4 
days on this bill. There is adequate time in this rule already.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to live with these laws for a very 
long time, as are all of the American people. Is it too much to ask 
that any duly elected representative from any of the 435 districts in 
this country be given, say, 5 minutes on the floor to express their 
concerns and enter into a colloquy to get questions answered regarding 
the intents of this legislation or offer an amendment? I do not think 
that is too much. You may say well, this is the law required by Speaker 
Gingrich's contract, and it must prevail.
  What will prevail here today is the law of unintended consequences. 
Is it the intention of the majority to allow the factory fleet, the 
trawlers out of Seattle, WA, to take all of the whiting off the Oregon 
coast and put local processors and small boats out of business? I do 
not believe the Republican majority wants to do that, but that is what 
this bill will do if we do not have a rule setting the allocations for 
that season, and this bill will prohibit that.
  Is it the intention of the majority to overrule and suspend part of 
the crime bill that was just passed, part of the contract? What about 
compensation for crime victims? It cannot happen if we do not have an 
administrative rule, and what you are doing here today will prevent 
your part of the contract to give overdue compensation to crime 
victims, their just due.
                              {time}  1140

  Is it your intention? I do not believe so. If it is not your 
intention, then, to do these unintended consequences, you must give us 
more time to discuss this. You must give us more time to offer 
amendments for these things because I cannot say that the majority whip 
or others really intended to do these things. But that is what will 
happen if we pass this bill today as written in the contract. The law 
of unintended consequences will prevail and we will have to live with 
it for an awfully long time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, is it not, under the prevailing new rules 
of the House, forbidden to use telephone equipment, portable telephone 
equipment on the floor of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair please advise Members they 
are not to do so?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Member are so advised.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the honorable whip of 
the majority party.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for allowing me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just astonished at the rancor over this rule. Ten 
hours for a bill, 10 hours for a bill that we should not even have to 
be debating on this House floor. And of course the bill has been 
totally mischaracterized. But let me talk about this; I have a letter 
here that I will ask unanimous consent to put into the Record, to the 
President of the United States, dated December 12, December 12, signed 
by both the leadership of the majority in the House and in the Senate 
to the President of the United States asking him to put a moratorium on 
regulations under his direction, understood his control, under his 
guidelines, so that he can decide which regulations would have a 
moratorium or not.
  And he refused. He refused. We asked him to do this so that when we 
brought up H.R. 9, the Regulatory Reform Act that calls for common 
sense and reasonableness in the promulgations of regulations and we 
worked through that bill and, hopefully, the President signs it, all 
these new regulations, all these new regulations would be under the new 
reform of regulations proposed in the Contract.
  The President refused to do it. Instead the President, who wants the 
regulatory police to maintain their patrol of businesses and American 
families across this country, has chosen to totally mischaracterize and 
distort and mislead the American people about this moratorium bill.
  The President, himself, said that the moratorium would cost lives and 
property. Well, obviously the President has never ever read the bill, 
and many of the Members that have already spoken have not read the 
bill. I have got the bill here for you to read.
  But there are exceptions as it pertains to safety and health in the 
bill. All the President has to do is have one of his agency heads write 
him and say this will affect health and safety or the routine business, 
or this regulation will remove regulatory burden, and the President, 
himself, can exempt it.
  In the bill we are giving, even though the President does not want 
it, we were giving the President the leadership he refuses to take on 
many issues in this regulatory moratorium, but yet he does not want to.
  They throw up duck seasons and red tape. What they are talking being 
about is they do not want the bureaucrats to go through red tape. The 
pro-regulation party, the proregulation 
[[Page H2083]]  party wants more regulations, they want to be able to 
put more regulations on the American people. They want to be able to 
drive up the cost of living to the American families by more 
regulations and silly regulations that we know are out there that we 
are trying to stop and bring some reasonableness to the regulations.
  We all understand that there are necessary regulations to protect the 
safety of workers and the health of the country. But all I ask you to 
do is read the bill. We would not have to have this bill on the floor 
of the House if the President of the United States would show a little 
leadership.
  (The text of the letter referred to is as follows:)

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President, on November 8th, the American people 
     sent a message to Washington. They voted for a smaller, less 
     intrusive government. We urge you to respond to that message 
     by issuing an Executive Order imposing a moratorium on all 
     federal rulemaking. This moratorium should go into effect 
     immediately and remain in effect for the first 100 days of 
     the next Congress. During the moratorium, agencies should be 
     directed to (1) identify both current and proposed 
     regulations with costs to society that outweigh any expected 
     benefits; (2) recommend actions to eliminate any unnecessary 
     regulatory burden; (3) recommend actions to give state, 
     local, or tribal governments more flexibility to meet 
     federally-imposed responsibilities; and (4) make this 
     information and the analysis supporting it available to 
     Congress.
       The moratorium we are proposing should not apply to all 
     regulations. For example, the proposed moratorium should 
     specifically exempt regulations that would relax a current 
     regulatory burden. Previous moratoriums have exempted several 
     types of regulations including those that (1) are subject to 
     a statutory or judicial deadline; (2) respond to emergencies 
     such as those that pose an imminent danger to human health or 
     safety; or (3) are essential to the enforcement of criminal 
     laws. It is our hope that you will review past exemption 
     categories and use them to guide you in establishing similar 
     standards for purposes of administering this moratorium.
       Excessive regulation and red tape have imposed an enormous 
     burden on our economy. Private estimates have projected the 
     combined direct cost of compliance with all existing federal 
     regulations to the private sector and to state and local 
     governments at well over $500 billion per year. Your own 
     National Performance Review observed that the compliance 
     costs imposed by federal regulations on the private sector 
     alone were ``at least $430 billion per year--9 percent of our 
     gross domestic product.'' This hidden tax has pushed up 
     prices for goods and services for American families, and 
     limited the ability of small business men and women to create 
     jobs. The Small Business Administration estimates that small 
     businesses in this country spend at least a billion hours a 
     year filling out government forms.
       The annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, released 
     on November 10, 1994, indicates that the Administration 
     completed 767 regulations during the past six months and is 
     pursuing over 4,300 rulemakings during the next fiscal year. 
     We believe this moratorium on new federal regulations would 
     send a clear signal that, working together, we intend to ease 
     the burden of federal overregulation on consumers and 
     businesses that has slowed economic growth and stifled job 
     creation.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look 
     forward to working with you to ensure that regulatory policy 
     works for the American people, not against them.
           Respectfully,
         Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, Don Nickles, Newt 
           Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, John Boehner.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, is it within the realm of the House rules 
for Members to smoke on the floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is prohibited.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I wish the Chair would advise Members of that, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Members are so advised.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, at the rear of the Chambers, behind the 
rail, is that included in the area in which Members can smoke?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That has been ruled to be part of the floor.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And Members are not to smoke in the back behind the 
rail?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are so advised.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes at this time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], a member of the Committee on 
Governmental Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good and fair rule.
  I believe that the prescription for economic recovery for this 
country is the three things we already passed: The balanced budget 
amendment; stopping unfunded mandates; eliminating pork by use of 
Presidential line item veto; and finally this very important 
legislation to stop the needless and costly Federal regulations which 
is affecting $500 billion annually as a cost to our businesses and 
therefore it cost jobs.
  I think it is important to note this is sound public policy. And one 
regulatory horror story which I think the American people need to hear 
about involves a John McCurdy. Mr. McCurdy was the owner of a very 
small herring smokehouse where he had for many, many years produced 
more than 54 million filets in his business, without one case in that 
20-year period of any food poisoning.
  But then the Food and Drug Administration told him he had to acquire 
a $75,000 piece of equipment. Facing the hopeless choice between 
installing equipment he could not afford without fighting a legal 
battle with the FDA, Mr. McCurdy chose the only other alternative. He 
closed his business and laid off 22 employees.
  Mr. Speaker, we need reasonable regulation, regulation that is pro-
jobs, pro-employees, and pro-business, which, I submit, is pro-
American.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Salt 
Lake City, UT, Mrs. Enid Green Waldholtz, a very welcome addition to 
our Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, this rule is not a closed rule, by 
anyone's definition. This rule is a fair rule that allows us adequate 
time to consider this legislation and to deal with it responsibly.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what we will be debating, 8\1/2\ pages of text 
in large type. It is important legislation, but it is not complex 
legislation. It does not void any regulation. In fact, as of November 
20 of last year, it does provide us a means to go forward if there is 
any imminent threat to safety or health or for any other emergency. It 
also allows us to move forward with regulations necessary to enforce 
our criminal laws.
  Mr. Speaker, 10 hours is more than adequate for us to have the 
philosophical discussion we must have as to whether this is good for 
the country, and it is adequate time in order for us to discuss any 
pertinent amendments to this legislation.
  This is important legislation to relieve the burden on the people of 
our country, and it is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the time is really at hand to begin 
the regulatory reform debate, and I cannot think of a fairer forum that 
has been provided than this rule.
  Now we had the last 2 years to bring forward all kinds of proposals 
on regulatory reform, and the other side denied the opportunity for 
this debate. This is a fair rule, this is an open rule, and it is time 
that we brought before the American people the true facts about 
regulation, how regulation is tying up this country in knots, how 
regulation is ruining job opportunities in this country, how regulation 
is ruining our opportunity to compete in a world market.

                              {time}  1150

  This is a fair rule, it is an open rule, and I say to my colleagues, 
``Don't be dissuaded by the administration, don't be dissuaded by the 
other side. This is the time and hour that the debate on regulatory 
reform has come, and the Nation will know the facts. This is 
[[Page H2084]]  going to be an improvement for the country.''
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. It is a good rule, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote for this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
remaining time that I have on this side to the distinguished minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to rise to 
comment on this rule. I do not support the rule and will vote against 
it, but I want to make my feelings, and I think the feelings of most of 
our Members on our side, clear.
  I have been quoted--I am led to understand--about what I say about 
these rules and what my thoughts are, so I want to make it crystal 
clear.
  We are again and again being met with rules that are not what I 
define as open rules with a free ability to have a lengthy debate about 
very important issues. Time and time again on the contract items we are 
being met with time-limited rules, open in the sense that any amendment 
can be brought up in that time, but time limited.
  Now I understand why there is a feeling on the Republican side that 
there needs to be time limits, but frankly the reason we are in this 
bind is because the Republican side has decided that this contract has 
to be considered in 100 days. It is a self-imposed restriction. I say 
to my colleagues, ``You have the right to do it, and I accept that, but 
that doesn't mean that on our side we have to agree with the idea that 
there is a compulsion or an urgency about getting all this legislation 
considered in 100 days.''
  It is self-imposed. There is no rationality for it. No one would be 
hurt if this took 125 days. The other body has yet to finish the second 
contract item and is likely to be the rest of the year doing the rest 
of the items. It would not hurt us to go 125 days.
  But I say to my colleagues, ``I accept the idea that it is your House 
to run and you'll set the rules. I understand that. But don't ask me to 
accept the idea or agree with the idea that 10 hours is enough for this 
bill.''
  On two other bills we had, the law enforcement bills, we had 8 or 10 
Members from both sides of the aisle who did not get to bring up their 
amendment because the time ran out. So we are left, when my colleagues 
do these time limits with open rules, with the ranking member and the 
chairman becoming substitute rules committees in trying to work out 
unanimous consent requests to try to get a time limit on different 
amendments. Now maybe that is the best way to do it; I do not know. It 
might be better if we could come to the Committee on Rules, and have a 
discussion and try to time-limit amendments, or maybe even in some 
cases certain amendments, if we were able to do that. But whatever is 
done, please do not come to the floor and say that I have agreed to 
this type of a rule or the Democrats are pleased with this type of a 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not. We would far prefer to have more time for 
such important legislation so that Members who have amendments on both 
sides of the aisle would be assured of the ability to come here and get 
at least 20 minutes or a half an hour to discuss their amendments. I do 
not think that is too much to ask. This is important legislation.
  I disagree with the idea that this is all straightforward, cut and 
dried, everybody agrees. They do not. This is going to have far-
reaching impacts, just as every other piece of legislation we have had 
up, so I urge the other side to let us have more time. Let us consider 
the idea that 100 days is not magic. The country will not fall apart if 
we do not get every one of these things considered in 100 days.
  Let us take the time, both in committee and on the floor, to allow as 
full, and free, and open a debate of these very important issues and 
the amendments that people want to bring so that the American people 
get the best possible product they can get.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we understand the desire of the majority to ensure that 
the bill made in order by this rule, the Regulatory Transition Act, is 
considered in a timely manner. However, the 10-hour limit on the 
amendment process contained in the rule is very troubling to many of us 
on this side.
  Based on our recent experience with other bills which were considered 
under a 10-hour time limit on amendments, we can expect that the actual 
time spent debating amendments will be much less than 10 hours--
somewhere between 6 and 6 hours. Since there are at least 15 amendments 
Members want to offer, the time limit virtually ensures that some of 
those amendments will be precluded--or, that the debate time on them 
will be so limited that it will be meaningless.
  During the consideration of this rule in the Rules Committee 
yesterday, we offered an amendment to strike the 10-hour time limit on 
the amendment process, since it was our first preference not to have 
any time limit at all. That amendment was rejected on a straight party-
line vote.
  Then we offered an amendment to exclude the time spent on recorded 
votes from the 10-hour limit. That change would have meant that there 
would actually be 10 hours to debate amendments, rather than 6 or 7 or 
8. That amendment was rejected on a straight party-line vote as well.
  As I said, the majority's desire to have a time limit on the offering 
of amendments is understandable, but their insistence on including in 
that limit the time it takes to hold recorded votes is not. Our request 
to exclude time spent on recorded votes was a very reasonable one which 
should have been accepted. I would have provided more certainty about 
the number of amendments that could be offered, and it would have made 
the arduous process of paring down and prioritizing amendments--which 
Members on both sides of the aisle are affected by--significantly less 
difficult.
  There is another reason we ought to be excluding time spent voting 
from the time limit on amendments: If voting time is included, sponsors 
of amendments are put in the uncomfortable position of having to choose 
between seeking a recorded vote and foregoing such a vote in order to 
increase the likelihood that other Members will get a chance to offer 
their amendments. It is simply not fair to put Members in that 
position.
  Mr. Speaker, the moratorium on regulations that would be imposed by 
the Regulatory Transition Act is likely to have far-reaching 
consequences for the health, safety, and well-being of our citizens. We 
sought to have ample time to talk about those effects, and to debate 
modifications to the legislation which would decrease the likelihood 
that Americans will be harmed by this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not be considering this bill under such a 
restrictive procedure. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, an awful lot has been said out here about who got what, 
and what is an open rule, and whether we have got the right approach to 
this.
  I say to the distinguished minority leader, ``I went back and looked 
at the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, the 103d 
Congress back when he was in the responsibility of leadership for the 
majority, and looked at the testimony the distinguished gentleman made 
before the Joint Committee on Organization of Congress last January.''
  Mr. Speaker, he said, and I quote, ``I believe we should support the 
Rules Committee when it puts time constraints on bills as this provides 
for more certainty for scheduling legislation.''
  I think that that is a fairly clear statement, and I agree that the 
gentleman has made it very clear that we should not necessarily apply 
that to his support on this particular rule. But the fact of the matter 
is we have got a rule here that, when it is compared to the work of the 
Committee on Rules of the majority last year, and the 103d Congress is 
at least two and a half times more generous in terms of debate, the 
time constraints on debate, in legislation that I think most Members 
thought more pretentious than the debate on the legislation that is in 
front of us, which is after all a moratorium we are talking about while 
we get to the real question of real regulatory reform, and I would like 
to specifically suggest that the Employment Retirement Security Act of 
1974, ERISA, it takes about 4 hours to explain what that is, let alone 
get into a debate on it, and yet we in the minority agreed 
[[Page H2085]]  by voice vote to go along with what the Committee on 
Rules of the then majority asked us to do with that time constraint.
  Then we had the State and local government Interstate Waste Control 
Act of 1994, again 4 hours, 40 percent of the time we are allowing for 
this moratorium resolution to deal with that that affects local 
governments and States, and it is a very serious issue. Again by voice 
vote we agreed to go along with that, and why did we do it? In the 
interests of the management of time. We accepted the responsibility on 
our side of the aisle, as the minority, to manage our time, to manage 
the debate, to make sure our speakers got covered what they wanted to 
get covered, to make sure that those amendments that were going to be 
brought in were brought in in an orderly way to make sure that dilatory 
tactics were not going to squeeze out people with higher priority, more 
worthwhile amendments. That is a responsibility the minority must 
accept.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe any fair, reasonable, prudent observer would 
agree that 10 hours of open rule debate is plenty for this moratorium, 
and I believe, if we go back and read the testimony before the 
Committee on Rules that we had, Ms. Collins suggested that she would be 
able to cluster amendments into packages on the same subject so we 
could move rather quickly on this particular piece of legislation.
                              {time}  1200

  The suggestion was made that somehow this is a self-imposed thing we 
are doing to ourselves. I would have to disagree with that. It is true 
that we are trying to move a big agenda. But it is an agenda that has 
been through the fire of a national referendum back in November. Yes, I 
would agree the vote at the ballot box was not on the Contract With 
America exclusively, but surely it was a part of that process, because 
whether the Republicans made it a part of that process or not, it is 
clear that many of the Democrats tried to make it a part of that 
process, and apparently succeeded.
  So I would say to try and characterize the Contract With America's 
agenda as a self-imposed one at this point on this body is stretching 
the definition of self-imposed somewhat.
  I think when you go back and you take a look at what we are trying to 
do and the way we are managing our time on this side, with the history 
of the unfunded mandates that we have seen, that legislation I believe 
was carried over 3 weeks on 8 actual working days, was subject to all 
kinds of dilatory tactics, we have felt it appropriate from the 
management of the majority, and we have the management of all 
legislation to deal with here, we have done a responsible job.
  I know we are never going to end the debate on what is an open rule 
because everybody will define it their way. But the people of this 
country have spoken that they like better the way we are running the 
rules of this House right now. We are seeing a rise in the approval 
rating. When I go home and talk to folks around my district and in 
other places, I find people say we are finding the debate on the floor 
a lot more lively, a lot more pertinent, a lot more germane. You are 
getting good issues out there. They are being voted up or down, but at 
least it is not a truly gagged issue. People are getting out there and 
being able to put their hardware out for all to see in this amendment 
process.
  Now, I regret if the other side, if the minority, has been unable to 
figure out a way to manage what priority amendments they wanted to 
bring up in the magnificent amount of time that has been allotted, but 
I suspect that the minority will get good at that, as we got good at it 
when we were the minority. We had 40 years to practice, and I hope 
perhaps that in the next 40 years you will have enough practice to be 
able to do the same. I think that would be an appropriate comparison 
after 40 years to see how we did.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, I urge support of the bill, 
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252, 
nays 175, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 159]

                               YEAS--252

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     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)
     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
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     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
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     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
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     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)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     [[Page H2086]] Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Clayton
     Ehlers
     Gonzalez
     Meek
     Seastrand
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1222

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. KILDEE changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. STUMP, TALENT, and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________