[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4192-H4212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1215, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA TAX
RELIEF ACT OF 1995
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 128, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 128
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. 1215) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to strengthen the American family and create jobs. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and the
amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as
original text and shall not exceed four hours, with two hours
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and two
hours equally divided among and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority members of the Committee on the Budget
and the Committee on Commerce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
1327, modified by the amendment printed in part 1 of the
report of the Committee on rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except the further amendment in the nature
of a substitute printed in part 2 of the report, which may be
offered only by Representative Gephardt of Missouri or his
designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All
points of order against the further amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendment as
may have been 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 amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1300
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a rule
providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1215, which is the
Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995. The bill is appropriately
entitled the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 because it
combines the tax relief provisions of H.R. 1215 with various spending
reductions from other committees, both to offset the cost of the tax
cuts and to begin us on a downward glide path toward a balanced budget.
Have we not waited forever for this?
The rule provides for a Democrat substitute printed in part 2 of the
Rules Committee report if offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt], the minority leader.
Finally, the rule provides for 1 motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this rule represents the final major procedural hurdle
to fulfilling our Contract With America and, oh, what an exciting,
successful run this 100-day contract period has been. Did you ever
think it would get here?
The bill this rule makes in order is certainly an appropriate closing
to that contract. It addresses both the
[[Page H4193]] need to give tax relief to the American people and debt
relief to future generations by locking us into a downward glide path
toward a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to prove my credentials as a
deficit hawk to anyone in this body. I am the only Member of this
House, in the last 20 years, to actually offer a balanced budget with
specifics. But, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I have
expressed concerns about enacting tax cuts without first making the
necessary spending cuts to produce a balanced budget. That is very,
very important to me. I would not be standing here today in support of
this rule and bill if I did not think that this bill as modified by the
adoption of the language that we are putting into this rule right now--
which we will be voting on in a few minutes--locks us into that
commitment. It does that. Make no mistake about it, a vote on this rule
is a vote to balance the budget, and you better remember that.
To those on the other side who claim that this is some kind of a fig
leaf, I would just urge you to first read the legislation. The Upton-
Castle-Martini-Solomon amendment prohibits the tax cuts from taking
effect until we first adopt a budget resolution that projects a
balanced budget by the year 2002. It then--and this is the critical
point--requires that pursuant to that budget resolution a
reconciliation bill must be enacted into law that keeps that commitment
with real spending cuts. And that is enacted into law. This is not some
budget resolution that the Committee on Rules can waive the Budget Act
for. If spending cuts are not done, those tax cuts do not become law.
It is just as simple and as real as that.
Mr. Speaker, if we deviate, then further policy options for putting
us back on track will be a part of the subsequent budget resolution and
those in turn will be translated into real spending cuts in the
reconciliation bill to follow, on which each and every one of us are
going to be forced to vote on, on the floor of this House.
That is no fig leaf. Perhaps we should not have Members, running for
higher office, running around here saying it is. Mr. Speaker, anyone
who calls this a fig leaf does not know the difference between a fig
leaf and a sledgehammer. Well, I do, believe you me. Reconciliation is
a sledgehammer. If you have ever been here to vote on one, you ought to
know, because you are going to be responsible to the voters back home
whichever way you vote. It makes a real impact and it gets real
results. You all, that are on this big-spender list I have here, always
complain about it.
Mr. Speaker, over 40 amendments were filed with the Committee on
Rules. Many of those amendments were good amendments that I could
individually support. But we cannot rewrite the Internal Revenue Code
on the floor of this House. We did not do it under a Democrat House,
and we will not do it under a Republican House. Not only do such
amendments affect other provisions in that code in ways we cannot
always anticipate, but taken together they can also produce vast new
revenue drains on the Treasury that we just cannot afford given our
current deficit situation. You all know how serious that is.
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to remain true to our past,
our bipartisan practice of modified closed rules when we are dealing
with tax and reconciliation bills. Put aside your additional individual
wish lists. I have done it for now, and I want you to look at the big
picture. This rule and this bill takes the fiscally responsible
approach of paying for the tax cuts and putting us on that downward
glide path toward a balanced budget which is so terribly, terribly
important to the future generations of this country.
I urge every Member to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to vote ``yes''
on this bill. The American people want it.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
Correction of Votes in Committee Report
The Rules Committee's report, House Report 104-100 on H.
Res. 128, the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1215, the
``Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995,'' contains an
erroneously reported rollcall vote due to a typographical
error during the printing process. The vote was correctly
reported in the original report filed with the Clerk.
Below is a correct version of that vote as contained in the
Rules Committee report as filed with the House. The amendment
number referred to in the motion is to an amendment filed
with the Rules Committee--a summary of which are contained
following the listing of votes in the committee report.
rules committee rollcall no. 122
Date: April 4, 1995.
Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 1215, Contract
With America Tax Relief Act.
Motion By: Mr. Moakley.
Summary of Motion: Allow a division of the question and a
separate vote on Titles II and V (H.R. 1215), the senior
citizen equity provisions.
Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay;
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay;
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea;
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS VERSUS 104TH
CONGRESS
[As of April 4, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 21 75
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 7 25
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 28 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 4, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. 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.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
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 A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/10/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
[[Page H4194]]
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued
[As of April 4, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/1/
95). Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/6/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1158........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95).
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95).
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act ...................
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax ...................
Relief Act of 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
National Taxpayers Union--Big Spender of 1993
Alabama: Rep. Tom Bevill, Rep. Robert E. Cramer, Rep. Earl
F. Hilliard.
Arizona: Rep. Karan English, Rep. Ed Pastor.
Arkansas: Sen. Dale Bumpers, Sen. David Pryor, Rep. Ray
Thornton.
California: Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep.
Xavier Becerra, Rep. Howard L. Berman, Rep. George E. Brown,
Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, Rep. Julian C. Dixon, Rep. Don
Edwards, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, Rep. Sam Farr, Rep. Vic Fazio,
Rep. Bob Filner, Rep. Dan Hamburg, Rep. Jane Harman, Rep. Tom
Lantos, Rep. Matthew G. Martinez, Rep. Robert T. Matsui, Rep.
George Miller, Rep. Norman Y. Mineta, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep.
Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. Pete Stark, Rep. Esteban E.
Torres, Rep. Walter R. Tucker, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Henry
A. Waxman, Rep. Lynn Woolsey.
Colorado: Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Rep. David E.
Skaggs.
Connecticut: Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Rep. Rosa DeLauro,
Rep. Sam Gejdenson, Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly.
Delaware: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Florida: Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Jim Bacchus, Rep. Corrine
Brown, Rep. Peter Deutsch, Rep. Sam M. Gibbons, Rep. Alcee L.
Hastings, Rep. Harry A. Johnston, Rep. Carrie P. Meek, Rep.
Pete Peterson, Rep. Karen L. Thurmon.
Georgia: Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Rep. George Darden, Rep.
John Lewis, Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney.
Hawaii: Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Rep.
Neil Abercrombie, Rep. Patsy T. Mink.
Illinois: Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, Sen. Paul Simon, Rep.
Cardiss Collins, Rep. Richard J. Durbin, Rep. Lane Evans,
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Rep. Mel Reynolds, Rep. Dan
Rostenkowski, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Rep. George E. Sangmeister,
Rep. Sidney R. Yates.
Indiana: Rep. Frank McCloskey, Rep. Peter J. Visclosky.
Iowa: Sen. Tom Harkin, Rep. Neal Smith.
Kansas: Rep. Dan Glickman.
Kentucky: Sen. Wendell H. Ford, Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli.
Louisiana: Sen. John B. Breaux, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston,
Rep. Cleo Fields, Rep. William J. Jefferson.
Maine: Sen. George J. Mitchell, Rep. Thomas H. Andrews.
Maryland: Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Rep. Kweisi
Mfume, Rep. Albert R. Wynn.
Massachusetts: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry,
Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy, Rep. Edward J.
Markey, Rep. Joe Moakley, Rep. Richard E. Neal, Rep. John W.
Olver, Rep. Gerry E. Studds.
Michigan: Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr., Rep.
David E. Bonior, Rep. Bob Carr, Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins,
Rep. John Conyers, Rep. John D. Dingell, Rep. William D.
Ford, Rep. Dale E. Kildee, Rep. Sander M. Levin.
Minnesota: Sen. Paul Wellstone, Rep. James L. Oberstar,
Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, Rep. Bruce F. Vento.
Mississippi: Rep. G.V. Montgomery, Rep. Bennie Thompson,
Rep. Jamie L. Whitten.
Missouri: Rep. William L. Clay, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt,
Rep. Ike Skelton, Rep. Harold L. Volkmer, Rep. Alan Wheat.
Montana: Sen. Max Baucus, Rep. Pat Williams.
Nevada: Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. James Bilbray.
New Jersey: Rep. Robert Menendez, Rep. Donald M. Payne,
Rep. Robert G. Torricelli.
New Mexico: Rep. Bill Richardson.
New York: Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Rep. Gary L.
Ackerman, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, Rep. Floyd H. Flake, Rep.
Maurice D. Hinchey, Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner, Rep. Nita
M. Lowey, Rep. Thomas J. Manton, Rep. Michael R. McNulty,
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Major R. Owens, Rep. Charles B.
Rangel, Rep. Charles E. Schumer, Rep. Jose E. Serrano, Rep.
Louise M. Slaughter, Rep. Edolphus Towns, Rep. Nydia M.
Velazquez.
North Carolina: Rep. Evan Clayton, Rep. W.G. Hefner, Rep.
Stephen L. Neal, Rep. David Price, Rep. Charlie Rose, Rep.
Melvin Watt.
Ohio: Sen. John Glenn, Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum, Rep.
Douglas Applegate, Rep. Sherrod Brown, Rep. Tony P. Hall,
Rep. Tom Sawyer, Rep. Louis Stokes, Rep. Ted Strickland.
Oklahoma: Rep. Mike Synar.
Oregon: Rep. Elizabeth Furse, Rep. Mike Kopetski, Rep. Ron
Wyden.
Pennsylvania: Sen. Harris Wofford, Rep. Lucien E.
Blackwell, Rep. Robert A. Borski, Rep. William J. Coyne, Rep.
Thomas M. Foglietta, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, Rep. John P.
Murtha.
Rhode Island: Sen. Claiborne Pell, Rep. Jack Reed.
South Carolina: Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, Rep. James E.
Clyburn, Rep. Butler Derrick, Rep. John M. Spratt.
South Dakota: Sen. Tom Daschle.
Tennessee: Sen. Harlan Mathews, Sen. Jim Sasser, Rep.
Harold E. Ford.
Texas: Rep. Jack Brooks, Rep. John Bryant, Rep. Jim
Chapman, Rep. Ronald D. Coleman, Rep. E. de la Garza, Rep.
Martin Frost, Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Rep. Gene Green, Rep.
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, Rep. J.J.
Pickle, Rep. Frank Tejeda, Rep. Craig Washington, Rep.
Charles Wilson.
Vermont: Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Rep. Bernard Sanders.
Virginia: Rep. Rick Boucher, Rep. Leslie L. Byrne, Rep.
James P. Moran, Rep. Robert C. Scott.
Washington: Sen. Patty Murray, Rep. Norm Dicks, Rep. Mike
Kreidler, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Al Swift, Rep. Jolene
Unsoeld.
West Virginia: Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Sen. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, Rep. Nick J. Rahall,
Rep. Bob Wise.
Wisconsin: Rep. Gerald D. Kleczka, Rep. David R. Obey.
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent 381839All
Name PA Sta Dist Grade score Rank attend. Avg.Support382510Support 8309620.45922Eligibility832963Eligibility LDR Budget Approp. Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long J (IN)....................... D IN 4 D 42 219 100.00 845 2028 ... ...... ....... 2
Cox J (IL)........................ D IL 16 D 42 220 100.00 843 2028 ... ...... ....... 2
Stallings R (ID).................. D ID 2 D 41 221 90.53 761 1836 ... ...... ....... 1
Johnston H (FL)................... D FL 14 D 41 222 98.47 826 1997 ... ...... ....... 3
Mazzoli R (KY).................... D KY 3 D 41 223 100.00 838 2028 d ...... ....... 3
Larocco L (ID).................... D ID 1 D 41 224 99.51 831 2018 ... ...... ....... 1
Visclosky P (IN).................. D IN 1 D 41 225 100.00 832 2028 ... ...... 1 2
Lloyd M (TN)...................... D TN 3 D 41 226 97.83 810 1984 ... ...... ....... 3
Lancaster H (NC).................. D NC 3 D 41 227 99.90 823 2026 ... ...... ....... 3
Huckaby J (LA).................... D LA 5 D 41 228 86.09 709 1746 ... 1 ....... 3
Peterson C (MN)................... D MN 7 D 40 229 99.46 811 2017 ... ...... ....... 2
Andrews M (TX).................... D TX 25 D 40 230 99.95 815 2027 ... ...... ....... 3
Schroeder P (CO).................. D CO 1 D 40 231 99.61 802 2020 d ...... ....... 1
Thomas L (GA)..................... D GA 1 D 39 232 83.04 665 1684 ... ...... 1 3
Brewster B (OK)................... D OK 3 D 39 233 99.85 799 2025 ... ...... ....... 3
Cramer B (AL)..................... D AL 5 D 39 234 99.56 795 2019 ... ...... ....... 3
Hoagland P (NE)................... D NE 2 D 39 235 99.75 796 2023 ... ...... ....... 2
Beilenson A (CA).................. D CA 23 D 39 236 92.55 737 1877 ... 1 ....... 1
Derrick B (SC).................... D SC 3 D 39 237 99.80 790 2024 d ...... ....... 3
[[Page H4195]]
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION--Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent 381839All
Name PA Sta Dist Grade score Rank attend. Avg.Support382510Support 8309620.45922Eligibility832963Eligibility LDR Budget Approp. Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickett O (VA).................... D VA 2 D 39 238 99.36 786 2015 ... ...... ....... 3
Spratt J (SC)..................... D SC 5 D 39 239 100.00 789 2028 ... 1 ....... 3
Early J (MA)...................... D MA 3 D 39 241 90.34 707 1832 ... ...... 1 4
McMillen T (MD)................... D MD 4 D 38 242 100.00 778 2028 ... ...... ....... 4
Kennedy J (MA).................... D MA 8 D 38 243 95.27 741 1932 ... ...... ....... 4
Gordon B (TN)..................... D TN 6 D 38 244 93.93 725 1905 d ...... ....... 3
Panetta L (CA).................... D CA 16 D 38 245 98.67 756 2001 d 1 ....... 1
Browder G (AL).................... D AL 3 D 37 246 99.11 753 2010 ... ...... ....... 3
Bacchus J (FL).................... D FL 11 D 37 247 99.41 750 2016 ... ...... ....... 3
Pease D (OH)...................... D OH 13 D 37 247 99.41 750 2016 ... 1 ....... 2
Bilbray J (NV).................... D NV 1 D 37 249 98.52 743 1998 ... ...... ....... 1
Bruce T (IL)...................... D IL 19 D 37 250 99.56 737 2019 ... ...... ....... 2
Atkins C (MA)..................... D MA 5 D 36 251 96.25 711 1952 ... ...... 1 4
Skelton I (MO).................... D MO 4 D 36 252 94.63 692 1919 ... ...... ....... 2
DeFazio P (OR).................... D OR 4 D 36 253 97.24 702 1972 ... ...... ....... 1
Sangmeister G (IL)................ D IL 4 D 36 254 98.22 709 1992 ... ...... ....... 2
Johnson T (SD).................... D SD 0 D 36 255 99.70 719 2022 ... ...... ....... 2
Staggers H (WV)................... D WV 2 D 35 256 89.45 643 1814 ... ...... ....... 4
Bryant J (TX)..................... D TX 5 D 35 257 95.32 685 1933 ... 1 ....... 3
Carr B (MI)....................... D MI 6 D 35 258 95.81 688 1943 ... ...... 1 2
Jenkins E (GA).................... D GA 9 D 35 259 95.27 684 1932 ... ...... ....... 3
Darden G (GA)..................... D GA 7 D 35 260 98.13 700 1990 ... ...... ....... 3
Vento B (MN)...................... D MN 4 D 35 261 99.61 700 2020 ... ...... ....... 2
Espy M (MS)....................... D MS 2 D 34 262 96.99 676 1967 ... 1 ....... 3
Eckart D (OH)..................... D OH 11 D 34 263 96.60 668 1959 d ...... ....... 2
Costello J (IL)................... D IL 21 D 34 264 94.23 650 1911 ... ...... ....... 3
Murphy A (PA)..................... D PA 22 F 33 266 93.74 633 1901 ... ...... ....... 4
Hall T (OH)....................... D OH 3 F 33 267 99.21 667 2012 ... ...... ....... 2
Andrews R (NJ).................... D NJ 1 F 33 268 97.68 653 1981 ... ...... ....... 4
Hatcher C (GA).................... D GA 2 F 33 269 62.72 419 1272 ... ...... ....... 3
Volkmer H (MO).................... D MO 9 F 33 270 98.96 660 2007 ... ...... ....... 2
Price D (NC)...................... D NC 4 F 33 271 99.70 664 2022 ... ...... 1 3
McCloskey F (IN).................. D IN 8 F 33 272 98.67 656 2001 ... ...... ....... 2
Stark P (CA)...................... D CA 9 F 33 273 92.26 612 1871 ... ...... ....... 1
Schumer C (NY).................... D NY 10 F 32 274 95.51 627 1937 ... ...... ....... 4
Aucoin L (OR)..................... D OR 1 F 32 275 86.19 565 1748 ... ...... 1 1
Peterson P (FL)................... D FL 2 F 32 276 97.14 634 1970 ... ...... ....... 3
Russo M (IL)...................... D IL 3 F 32 277 74.36 485 1508 d ...... ....... 2
Applegate (OH).................... D OH 18 F 32 278 98.22 634 1992 ... ...... ....... 2
Synar M (OK)...................... D OK 2 F 31 279 98.42 626 1996 d ...... ....... 3
Wilson C (TX)..................... D TX 2 F 31 280 95.61 608 1939 ... ...... 1 3
Wyden R (OR)...................... D OR 3 F 31 281 99.31 631 2014 ... ...... ....... 1
Pickle J (TX)..................... D TX 10 F 31 282 97.78 621 1983 ... ...... ....... 3
Olin J (VA)....................... D VA 6 F 31 283 88.56 561 1796 ... ...... ....... 3
Miller G (CA)..................... D CA 7 F 31 284 93.64 592 1899 d 1 ....... 1
Studds G (MA)..................... D MA 10 F 31 285 98.92 622 2006 ... ...... ....... 4
Jones B (GA)...................... D GA 4 F 31 286 78.16 491 1585 ... ...... ....... 3
Lipinski W (IL)................... D IL 5 F 31 287 86.93 545 1763 ... ...... ....... 2
Durbin R (IL)..................... D IL 20 F 31 288 99.90 626 2026 ... 1 1 2
Oberstar J (MN)................... D MN 8 F 31 289 99.95 626 2027 ... 1 ....... 2
McDermott J (WA).................. D WA 7 F 31 290 99.95 621 2027 ... ...... ....... 1
Horn J (MO)....................... D MO 2 F 31 291 100.00 621 2028 ... ...... ....... 2
Slaughter L (NY).................. D NY 30 F 31 292 99.16 614 2011 ... 1 ....... 4
Conyers J (MI).................... D MI 1 F 30 293 83.43 514 1692 ... ...... ....... 2
Yates S (IL)...................... D IL 9 F 30 294 85.31 525 1730 ... ...... 1 2
Kostmayer P (PA).................. D PA 8 F 30 295 99.80 614 2024 d ...... ....... 4
Ford H (TN)....................... D TN 9 F 30 296 84.27 518 1709 ... ...... ....... 3
Gejdenson S (CT).................. D CT 2 F 30 297 99.56 611 2019 d ...... ....... 4
Andrews T (ME).................... D ME 1 F 30 298 98.67 603 2001 ... ...... ....... 4
Hayes C (IL)...................... D IL 1 F 30 299 98.32 598 1994 ... ...... ....... 2
Williams P (MT)................... D MT 1 F 30 300 92.70 556 1880 d ...... ....... 1
Chapman J (TX).................... D TX 1 F 30 301 98.62 590 2000 ... ...... 1 3
Sawyer T (OH)..................... D OH 14 F 29 302 99.90 597 2026 ... ...... ....... 2
Hamilton L (IN)................... D IN 9 F 29 303 100.00 597 2028 ... ...... ....... 2
Levin S (MI)...................... D MI 17 F 29 304 99.90 596 2026 ... ...... ....... 2
Leighan E (OH).................... D OH 19 F 29 305 88.66 528 1798 ... ...... ....... 2
Richardson B (NM)................. D NM 3 F 29 306 96.89 576 1965 ... ...... ....... 1
Kennelly B (CT)................... D CT 1 F 29 307 99.65 590 2021 d ...... ....... 4
Frank B (MA)...................... D MA 4 F 29 308 99.01 583 2008 ... 1 ....... 4
Mfume K (MD)...................... D MD 7 F 29 309 98.62 579 2000 ... ...... ....... 4
Clay W. (MO)...................... D MO 1 F 29 310 97.63 573 1980 ... ...... ....... 2
SABO M (MN)....................... D MN 5 F 29 311 99.21 581 2012 d 1 1 2
Owens M (NY)...................... D NY 12 F 29 312 95.66 555 1940 ... ...... ....... 4
Wise B (WV)....................... D WV 3 F 28 313 95.41 551 1935 ... 1 ....... 4
Tallon R (SC)..................... D SC 6 F 28 314 90.24 521 1830 ... ...... ....... 3
Reed J (RI)....................... D RI 2 F 28 315 100.00 576 2028 ... ...... ....... 4
Skaggs D (CO)..................... D CO 2 F 28 316 100.00 576 2028 ... ...... 1 1
Kildee D (MI)..................... D MI 7 F 28 317 100.00 570 2028 ... 1 ....... 2
Laface J (NY)..................... D NY 32 F 28 318 96.94 552 1966 ... ...... ....... 4
Yatron G (PA)..................... D PA 6 F 28 319 89.55 509 1816 ... ...... ....... 4
Gibbons S (FL).................... D FL 7 F 28 320 96.65 549 1960 ... ...... ....... 3
Washington C (TX)................. D TX 18 F 28 321 97.73 555 1982 ... ...... ....... 3
Dellums R (CA).................... D CA 8 F 28 322 99.31 562 2014 ... ...... ....... 1
Weiss T (NY)...................... D NY 17 F 28 323 84.52 478 1714 ... ...... ....... 4
Solarz S (NY)..................... D NY 13 F 28 324 81.95 461 1662 ... ...... ....... 4
Olver J (MA)...................... D MA 1 F 28 325 99.41 557 2016 ... ...... ....... 4
Wolpe H (MI)...................... D MI 3 F 28 326 92.70 517 1880 ... ...... ....... 2
Payne D (NJ)...................... D NJ 10 F 27 327 94.77 527 1922 ... ...... ....... 4
Lantos T (CA)..................... D CA 11 F 27 328 96.45 532 1956 ... ...... ....... 1
Guarini F (NJ).................... D NJ 14 F 27 329 95.07 524 1928 ... 1 ....... 4
Ortiz S (TX)...................... D TX 27 F 27 330 94.58 521 1918 ... ...... ....... 3
Nowark H (NY)..................... D NY 33 F 27 331 94.97 520 1926 ... ...... ....... 4
Anderson G (CA)................... D CA 32 F 27 332 94.53 512 1917 ... ...... ....... 1
Flake F (NY)...................... D NY 6 F 27 333 90.93 491 1844 ... ...... ....... 4
Serrano J (NY).................... D NY 18 F 27 334 97.14 524 1970 ... ...... ....... 4
Swift A (WA)...................... D WA 2 F 27 335 98.96 533 2007 d ...... ....... 1
Lehman R (CA)..................... D CA 18 F 26 336 87.72 471 1779 ... ...... 1 1
Blackwell L (PA).................. D PA 2 F 26 337 97.24 516 1972 ... ...... ....... 4
Markey E (MA)..................... D MA 7 F 26 338 95.32 503 1933 ... ...... ....... 4
Lowey N (NY)...................... D NY 20 F 26 339 100.00 526 2028 ... ...... ....... 4
Rangel C (NY)..................... D NY 16 F 26 340 98.67 516 2001 d ...... ....... 4
Foglietta T (PA).................. D PA 1 F 26 341 89.50 467 1815 ... ...... ....... 4
Collins B (MI).................... D MI 13 F 26 342 93.00 484 1886 ... ...... ....... 2
Evans L (IL)...................... D IL 17 F 26 343 99.95 519 2027 ... ...... ....... 2
Edwards D (CA).................... D CA 10 F 26 344 97.53 505 1978 ... ...... ....... 1
Collins C (IL).................... D IL 7 F 25 345 82.84 425 1680 ... ...... ....... 2
Wheat A (MO)...................... D MO 5 F 25 346 99.65 511 2021 d ...... ....... 2
Savage G (IL)..................... D IL 2 F 25 347 82.79 423 1679 ... ...... ....... 2
[[Page H4196]]
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION--Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent 381839All
Name PA Sta Dist Grade score Rank attend. Avg.Support382510Support 8309620.45922Eligibility832963Eligibility LDR Budget Approp. Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waxman H (CA)..................... D CA 24 F 25 348 97.88 499 1985 ... ...... ....... 1
Scheuer J (NY).................... D NY 8 F 25 349 91.91 465 1864 ... ...... ....... 4
Moakley J (MA).................... D MA 4 F 25 350 92.85 469 1883 d ...... ....... 4
Torricelli R (NJ)................. D NJ 9 F 25 351 97.29 491 1973 ... ...... ....... 4
Unsoeld J (WA).................... D WA 3 F 25 352 92.80 468 1882 ... ...... ....... 1
Neal R (MA)....................... D MA 2 F 25 353 98.13 492 1990 ... ...... ....... 4
Kanjorski P (PA).................. D PA 11 F 25 354 100.00 500 2028 ... ...... ....... 4
Hoyer S (MD)...................... D MD 5 F 25 355 99.06 495 2009 d ...... 1 4
Delauro R (CT).................... D CT 3 F 25 356 100.00 499 2028 ... ...... ....... 4
Kleczka G (WI).................... D WI 4 F 25 357 98.92 493 2006 d ...... ....... 2
Matsui R (CA)..................... D CA 3 F 25 358 94.92 472 1925 d 1 ....... 1
Hefner W (NC)..................... D NC 8 F 24 359 53.70 266 1089 d ...... 1 3
Stokes L (OH)..................... D OH 21 F 24 360 98.32 485 1994 ... ...... 1 2
Pelosi N (CA)..................... D CA 5 F 24 361 89.74 442 1820 ... ...... 1 1
Ford W (MI)....................... D MI 15 F 24 362 94.28 464 1912 ... ...... ....... 2
Nagle D (IA)...................... D IA 3 F 24 363 96.25 471 1952 ... ...... ....... 2
Berman H (CA)..................... D CA 26 F 24 364 98.92 483 2006 ... 1 ....... 1
Jones W (NC)...................... D NC 1 F 24 365 76.97 373 1561 ... ...... ....... 3
Obey D (WI)....................... D WI 7 F 24 366 99.75 481 2023 d ...... 1 2
Frost M (TX)...................... D TX 24 F 24 367 96.45 463 1956 d ...... ....... 3
McHugh M (NY)..................... D NY 28 F 24 368 99.06 474 2009 d ...... 1 4
Abercrombie N (HI)................ D HI 1 F 23 369 97.78 466 1983 ... ...... ....... 1
Pastor E (AZ)..................... D AZ 2 F 23 370 96.60 458 1959 ... ...... ....... 1
Mavroules N (MA).................. D MA 6 F 23 371 96.84 443 1964 ... ...... ....... 4
Waters M (CA)..................... D CA 29 F 22 372 94.72 432 1921 ... ...... ....... 1
De la Garza E (TX)................ D TX 15 F 22 373 93.44 423 1895 ... ...... ....... 3
Smith L (FL)...................... D FL 16 F 22 374 90.19 408 1829 d ...... 1 3
Moran J (VA)...................... D VA 8 F 22 375 91.67 414 1859 ... ...... ....... 3
Traficant J (OH).................. D OH 17 F 22 376 99.31 447 2014 ... ...... ....... 2
Ackerman G (NY)................... D NY 7 F 22 377 82.79 372 1679 ... ...... ....... 4
Koltr J (PA)...................... D PA 4 F 22 378 74.41 331 1509 ... ...... ....... 4
Lewis J (GA)...................... D GA 5 F 22 379 94.87 418 1924 d ...... ....... 3
Towns E (NY)...................... D NY 11 F 22 380 83.33 365 1690 ... ...... ....... 4
Mink P (HI)....................... D HI 2 F 21 381 95.32 415 1933 ... ...... ....... 1
Mrazek R (NY)..................... D NY 3 F 21 382 89.64 386 1818 ... ...... 1 4
Coyne W (PA)...................... D PA 14 F 21 383 99.80 429 2024 ... ...... ....... 4
Boxer B (CA)...................... D CA 6 F 21 384 60.65 260 1230 ... ...... ....... 1
Downey T (NY)..................... D NY 2 F 21 385 99.46 425 2017 ... ...... ....... 4
Cardin B (MD)..................... D MD 3 F 21 386 95.56 407 1938 ... ...... ....... 4
Roybal E (CA)..................... D CA 25 F 20 387 99.56 413 2019 ... ...... 1 1
Bevill T (AL)..................... D AL 4 F 20 388 95.81 396 1943 d ...... 1 3
Whitten J (MS).................... D MS 1 F 20 389 68.34 277 1386 d ...... 1 3
Rahall N (WV)..................... D WV 4 F 20 390 98.42 395 1996 ... ...... ....... 4
Natcher W (KY).................... D KY 2 F 20 391 100.00 401 2028 ... ...... 1 3
Mineta N (CA)..................... D CA 13 F 20 392 99.51 398 2018 d ...... ....... 1
Boucher R (VA).................... D VA 9 F 20 393 99.31 393 2014 ... ...... ....... 3
Engel E (NY)...................... D NY 19 F 19 394 94.03 366 1907 ... ...... ....... 4
Dwyer B (NJ)...................... D NJ 6 F 19 395 85.06 331 1725 ... 1 1 4
Gaydos J (PA)..................... D PA 20 F 19 396 79.44 309 1611 ... ...... ....... 4
Kaptur M (OH)..................... D OH 9 F 19 397 96.20 373 1951 ... ...... 1 2
Kopetski M (OR)................... D OR 5 F 19 398 98.37 379 1995 ... ...... ....... 1
Martinez M (CA)................... D CA 30 F 19 399 97.19 374 1971 ... ...... ....... 1
Rostenkowski D (IL)............... D IL 8 F 19 400 89.99 344 1825 d ...... ....... 2
Dicks N (WA)...................... D WA 6 F 19 401 96.01 366 1947 ... ...... 1 1
Manton T (NY)..................... D NY 9 F 19 402 92.46 352 1875 d ...... ....... 4
Brown G (CA)...................... D CA 36 F 18 403 89.40 333 1813 ... ...... ....... 1
Hochbrueckner G (NY).............. D NY 1 F 18 404 99.85 371 2025 ... ...... ....... 4
Dingell J (MI).................... D MI 16 F 18 405 88.66 328 1798 ... ...... ....... 2
Jefferson W (LA).................. D LA 2 F 18 406 86.88 321 1762 ... ...... ....... 3
Traxler B (MI).................... D MI 8 F 18 407 50.30 182 1020 ... ...... 1 2
McNulty M (NY).................... D NY 23 F 18 408 98.96 356 3007 ... ...... ....... 4
Perkins C (KY).................... D KY 7 F 18 409 87.92 316 1783 ... ...... ....... 3
Annunzio F (IL)................... D IL 11 F 18 410 87.38 314 1772 ... ...... ....... 4
Brooks J (TX)..................... D TX 9 F 17 411 89.69 318 1819 ... ...... ....... 3
Levine M (CA)..................... D CA 27 F 17 412 58.68 205 1190 ... ...... ....... 1
Bustamante A (TX)................. D TX 23 F 17 413 88.12 303 1787 d ...... ....... 3
Lehman W (FL)..................... D FL 17 F 17 414 75.94 260 1540 ... ...... ....... 3
Aspin L (WI)...................... D WI 1 F 17 415 97.73 329 1982 ... ...... ....... 2
Dymally M (CA).................... D CA 31 F 16 416 52.22 174 1059 ... ...... ....... 1
Rose C (NC)....................... D NC 7 F 16 417 99.41 325 2016 ... ...... ....... 3
Smith N (IA)...................... D IA 4 F 16 418 93.89 306 1904 ... ...... 1 3
Gephardt R (MO)................... D MO 3 F 16 419 90.73 295 1840 d 1 ....... 2
Borski R (PA)..................... D PA 3 F 16 420 98.62 320 2000 ... ...... ....... 4
Murtha J (PA)..................... D PA 12 F 15 421 97.58 294 1979 d ...... 1 4
Bonior D (MI)..................... D MI 12 F 15 422 82.30 247 1669 d ...... ....... 2
Fazio V (CA)...................... D CA 4 F 15 423 98.37 292 1995 d ...... 1 1
Dixon J (CA)...................... D CA 28 F 15 424 98.03 289 1988 ... ...... 1 1
Hertel D (MI)..................... D MI 14 F 14 425 92.16 256 1869 ... ...... ....... 2
Mollohan A (WV)................... D WV 1 F 14 426 97.44 269 1976 ... ...... 1 4
Coleman R (TX).................... D TX 16 F 13 427 97.53 264 1978 ... ...... ....... 3
Gonzalez H (TX)................... D TX 20 F 13 428 100.00 266 2028 ... ...... ....... 3
Thornton R (AR)................... D AR 2 F 13 429 97.73 259 1982 d ...... ....... 3
Alexander B (AR).................. D AR 1 F 13 430 78.85 201 1599 ... ...... 1 3
Roe R (NJ)........................ D NJ 8 F 12 431 87.23 218 1769 ... ...... ....... 4
Oakar M (OH)...................... D OH 20 F 12 432 84.02 198 1704 ... ...... ....... 2
[From the National Taxpayers Union, Washington, DC]
Biggest Spenders--102d Congress, 1st Session 1991
Alabama: Rep. Tom Bevill, Rep. Glen Browder, Rep. Bud
Cramer, Rep. Claude Harris, Sen. Howell Heflin, Sen. Richard
C. Shelby.
Arkansas: Rep. Bill Alexander, Rep. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr.,
Rep. Ray Thornton.
California: Rep. Glenn M. Anderson, Rep. Howard L. Berman,
Rep. Barbara Boxer, Rep. George E. Brown, Jr., Rep. Julian C.
Dixon, Rep. Calvin Dooley, Rep. Don Edwards, Rep. Vic Fazio,
Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. Richard H. Lehman, Rep. Mel Levine,
Rep. Matthew G. Martinez, Rep. Robert T. Matsui, Rep. Norman
Y. Mineta, Rep. Leon E. Panetta, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep.
Edward R. Roybal, Rep. Esteban Edward Torres, Rep. Henry A.
Waxman.
Colorado: Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Rep. David E.
Skaggs.
Connecticut: Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep.
Sam Gejdenson, Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly, Sen. Joseph
Lieberman.
Florida: Rep. Jim Bacchus, Rep. Dante B. Fascell, Rep. Sam
M. Gibbons, Rep. William Lehman, Rep. Douglas Peterson, Rep.
Lawrence J. Smith.
Georgia: Rep. George Darden, Rep. Charles F. Hatcher, Rep.
Ed Jenkins, Rep. Ben Jones, Rep. John Lewis, Rep. J. Roy
Rowland, Rep. Lindsay Thomas.
Hawaii: Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Sen. Daniel Akaka, Sen.
Daniel Inouye, Rep. Patsy T. Mink.
Idaho: Rep. Larry LaRocco, Rep. Richard H. Stallings.
Illinois: Rep. Frank Annunzio, Rep. John W. Cox, Jr., Rep.
Dan Rostenkowski.
Indiana: Rep. Jim Jontz, Rep. Frank McCloskey.
[[Page H4197]] Iowa: Rep. David R. Nagle, Rep. Neal Smith.
Kentucky: Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli, Rep. William H. Natcher,
Rep. Carl C. Perkins.
Louisiana: Sen. John Breaux, Rep. William J. Jefferson.
Maryland: Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer,
Rep. Tom McMillen, Sen. Paul Sarbanes.
Massachusetts: Rep. Chester G. Atkins, Rep. Barney Frank,
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Rep.
Nicholas Mavroules, Rep. John Joseph Moakley, Rep. Richard E.
Neal, Rep. John W. Olver.
Michigan: Rep. David E. Bonior, Rep. Bob Carr, Rep.
Barbara-Rose Collins, Rep. John D. Dingell, Rep. Dennis M.
Hertel, Rep. Dale E. Kildee, Rep. Sander M. Levin, Rep. Bob
Traxler.
Minnesota: Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, Rep. Bruce F. Vento.
Mississippi: Rep. Mike Espy, Rep. Jamie L. Whitten.
Missouri: Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, Rep. Joan Kelly Ham,
Rep. Alan Wheat.
Nebraska: Rep. Peter Hoagland.
Nevada: Rep. James H. Bilbray, Sen. Richard H. Bryan, Sen.
Harry Reid.
New Jersey: Rep. Bernard J. Dwyer, Rep. Robert A. Roe, Rep.
Robert G. Torricelli.
New Mexico: Rep. Bill Richardson, Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
New York: Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, Rep. Thomas J. Downey, Rep. Eliot L.
Engel, Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman, Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner,
Rep. Frank Horton, Rep. John J. LaFalce, Rep. Nita M. Lowey,
Rep. Thomas J. Manton, Rep. Matthew F. McHugh, Rep. Michael
R. McNulty, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Rep. Robert J.
Mrazek, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Rep. Charles E. Schumer, Rep.
Jose E. Serrano, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Rep. Stephen J.
Solarz.
North Carolina: Rep. W.G. (Bill) Hefner, Rep. Walter B.
Jones, Rep. H. Martin Lancaster, Rep. David E. Price, Rep.
Charlie Rose.
North Dakota: Sen. Quentin Burdick.
Ohio: Rep. Edward F. Feighan, Rep. Tony P. Hall, Rep. Mary
Rose Oakar, Rep. Thomas C. Sawyer.
Oklahoma: Sen. David L. Boren, Rep. Bill Brewster.
Oregon: Rep. Les AuCoin, Rep. Mike Kopetski, Sen. Bob
Packwood, Rep. Ron Wyden.
Pennsylvania: Rep. Robert A. Borski, Rep. William J. Coyne,
Rep. Thomas M. Foglietta, Rep. Joseph M. Gaydos, Sen. Arlen
Specter, Sen. Harris Wofford, Rep. Joe Kolter, Rep. Peter H.
Kostmayer, Rep. John P. Murtha, Rep. Gus Yatron.
South Carolina: Rep. Butler Derrick, Rep. John M. Spratt,
Jr.
Tennessee: Rep. Bob Clement, Rep. Harold E. Ford, Rep. Bart
Gordon, Sen. Al Gore, Rep. Marilyn Lloyd.
Texas: Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, Rep. Jack Brooks, Rep. John
Bryant, Rep. Albert G. Bustamante, Rep. Jim Chapman, Rep.
Ronald D. Coleman, Rep. E de la Garza, Rep. Chet Edwards,
Rep. Martin Frost, Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Rep. Solomon P.
Ortiz, Rep. J.J. Pickle, Rep. Charles Wilson.
Utah: Rep. Wayne Owens.
Virginia: Rep. Rick Boucher, Rep. James P. Moran, Rep. Owen
B. Pickett, Sen. Charles Robb, Rep. Norman Sisisky.
Washington: Rep. Norman D. Dicks, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep.
Al Swift, Rep. Jolene Unsoeld.
West Virginia: Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, Rep. Bob Wise.
Wisconsin: Rep. Les Aspin, Rep. Gerald D. Kleczka.
____
[From the National Taxpayers Union, Washington, DC]
Bombs of 1990
The number one congressional song for big spenders in 1990
``Hey, Big Spender.''
Alabama: Sen. Howell T. Heflin, Sen. Richard C. Shelby,
Rep. Glen Browder, Rep. Tom Bevill, Rep. Ronnie Flippo, Rep.
Claude Harris.
Alaska: Sen. Ted Stevens.
Arizona: Sen. Dennis DeConcini, Rep. Morris K. Udall.
Arkansas: Rep. Bill Alexander, Rep. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr.
California: Sen. Alan Cranston, Rep. Douglas H. Bosco, Rep.
Robert T. Matsui, Rep. Vic Fazio, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep.
Barbara Boxer, Rep. Don Edwards, Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. Norman
Y. Mineta, Rep. Leon E. Panetta, Rep. Richard H. Lehman, Rep.
Henry A. Waxman, Rep. Edward R. Roybal, Rep. Howard L.
Berman, Rep. Mel Levine, Rep. Julian C. Dixon, Rep. Augustus
F. Hawkins, Rep. Matthew G. Martinez, Rep. Mervyn M. Dymally,
Rep. Glenn M. Anderson, Rep. Esteban Edward Torres, Rep.
George E. Brown, Jr.
Colorado: Rep. David E. Skaggs.
Connecticut: Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly, Rep. Sam Gejdenson.
Florida: Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Bill Nelson, Rep. Lawrence
J. Smith, Rep. William Lehman, Rep. Dante B. Fascell.
Georgia: Sen. Wyche Fowler, Jr., Rep. Lindsay Thomas, Rep.
Charles F. Hatcher, Rep. Ben Jones, Rep. John Lewis, Rep.
George (Buddy) Darden, Rep. J. Roy Rowland.
Hawaii: Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Sen. Daniel K. Akaka.
Illinois: Rep. Charles A. Hayes, Rep. William O. Lipinski,
Rep. Cardiss Collins, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, Rep. Sidney R.
Yates, Rep. Lane Evans, Rep. Terry L. Bruce, Rep. Richard J.
Durbin, Rep. Jerry F. Costello.
Indiana: Rep. Peter J. Visclosky, Rep. Frank McCloskey.
Iowa: Rep. David R. Nagle, Rep. Neal Smith.
Kentucky: Sen. Wendell H. Ford, Rep. William H. Natcher,
Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli, Rep. Carl C. Perkins.
Louisiana: Sen. John B. Breaux, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston,
Rep. Lindy Boggs.
Maryland: Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, Rep. Tom McMillen, Rep. Steny H.
Hoyer.
Massachusetts: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Rep. Richard E.
Neal, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Chester G. Atkins, Rep.
Nicholas Mavroules, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Rep. Joseph P.
Kennedy II, Rep. John Joseph Moakley, Rep. Gerry E. Studds.
Michigan: Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Rep. Howard Wolpe, Rep.
Dale E. Kildee, Rep. Bob Traxler, Rep. Robert W. Davis, Rep.
David E. Bonior, Rep. George W. Crockett, Jr., Rep. William
D. Ford, Rep. John D. Dingell, Rep. Sander M. Levin.
Minnesota: Rep. Bruce F. Vento, Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, Rep.
Gerry Sikorski, Rep. James L. Oberstar.
Mississippi: Rep. Jamie L. Whitten,
Rep. Mike Espy, Rep. G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery.
Missouri: Rep. William L. (Bill) Clay, Rep. Richard A.
Gephardt, Rep. Ike Skelton, Rep. Alan Wheat, Rep. Harold L.
Volkmer.
Nebraska: Rep. Peter Hoagland.
Nevada: Rep. James H. Bilbray:
New Jersey: Rep. Bernard J. Dwyer, Rep. Robert A. Roe, Rep.
Robert G. Torricelli, Rep. Donald Payne.
New Mexico: Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Rep. Bill Richardson.
New York: Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner, Rep. Robert J.
Mrazek, Rep. Floyd H. Flake, Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, Rep.
James H. Scheuer, Rep. Thomas J. Manton, Rep. Charles E.
Schumer, Rep. Edolphus Towns, Rep. Major R. Owens, Rep.
Stephen J. Solarz, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Rep. Jose E.
Serrano, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, Rep. Nita M. Lowey, Rep.
Bejamin A. Gilman, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, Rep. Sherwood L.
Boehlert, Rep. Matthew F. McHugh, Rep. Frank Horton, Rep.
Louise M. Slaughter, Rep. Henry J. Nowak.
North Carolina: Sen. Terry Sanford, Rep. Walter B. Jones,
Rep. H. Martin Lancaster, Rep. David E. Price, Rep. Charlie
Rose, Rep. W.G. (Bill) Hefner.
North Dakota: Sen. Quentin N. Burdick.
Ohio: Sen. John Glenn, Rep. Thomas A. Luken, Rep. Marcy
Kaptur, Rep. Thomas C. Sawyer, Rep. Edward F. Feighan, Rep.
Mary Rose Oakar, Rep. Louis Stokes.
Oklahoma: Sen. David L. Boren, Rep. Mike Synar, Rep. Wes
Watkins.
Oregon: Rep. Les AuCoin, Rep. Ron Wyden, Rep. Peter A.
DeFazio.
Pennsylvania: Rep. Thoms M. Foglietta, Rep. William H. Gray
III, Rep. Robert A. Borski, Rep. Peter H. Kostmayer, Rep.
John P. Murtha, Rep. William J. Coyne.
South Carolina: Rep. Butler Derrick, Rep. John M. Spratt,
Jr.
South Dakota: Rep. Tim Johnson.
Tennessee: Sen. Albert Gore, Jr., Rep. Marilyn Lloyd, Rep.
Bob Clement, Rep. Bart Gordon, Rep. John Tanner, Rep. Harold
E. Ford.
Texas: Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, Rep. Jim Chapman, Rep. Charles
Wilson, Rep. Jack Brooks, Rep. J.J. Pickle, Rep. Marvin
Leath, Rep. Pete Geren, Rep. E Kika de la Garza, Rep. Ronald
D. Coleman, Rep. Craig A. Washington, Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez,
Rep. Albert G. Bustamante, Rep. Martin Frost, Rep. Michael A.
Andrews, Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz.
Vermont: Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Rep. James M. Jeffords.
Virginia: Rep. Norman Sisisky, Rep. Lewis F. Payne, Jr.,
Rep. Rick Boucher.
Washington: Sen. Brock Adams, Rep. Al Swift, Rep. Jolene
Unsoeld, Rep. Norman D. Dicks, Rep. Jim McDermott.
West Virginia: Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, Rep. Harley O.
Staggers, Jr., Rep. Bob Wise.
Wisconsin: Rep. Les Aspin, Rep. Gerald D. Kleckzka, Rep.
David Obey.
____
VOTE TALLY MEMBER REPORT SORTED BY NET SPENDING--SENATE
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress
(Figures in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name, party, and state Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Johnston, J. (D-LA)................. 127,123 -31,700 95,422
2 Bryan, R. (D-NV).................... 132,582 -44,342 88,240
3 Breaux, J. (D-LA)................... 130,572 -45,993 84,579
4 Daschle, T. (D-SD).................. 130,763 -46,354 84,409
5 Inouye, D. (D-HI)................... 130,702 -16,352 84,350
6 Moseley-Braun, C. (D-IL)............ 134,551 -50,324 84,229
7 Reid, H. (D-NV)..................... 132,610 -48,449 84,161
8 Biden, J. (D-DE).................... 130,708 -46,815 83,893
9 Rockefeller, J. (D-WV).............. 130,488 -46,657 83,831
10 Mikulski, B. (D-MD)................ 128,823 -45,826 82,997
11 Akaka, D. (D-HI)................... 130,732 -47,884 82,848
12 Boxer, B. (D-CA)................... 136,389 -53,720 82,669
13 Wellstone, P. (D-MN)............... 135,793 -54,280 81,513
14 Riegle, D. (D-MI).................. 128,496 -47,037 81,459
15 Ford, W. (D-KY).................... 130,732 -49,714 81,018
16 Glenn, J. (D-OH)................... 127,262 -46,343 80,919
17 Sarbanes, P. (D-MD)................ 127,332 -47,571 79,761
18 Murray, P. (D-WA).................. 127,332 -48,003 79,329
19 Dodd, C. (D-CT).................... 126,256 -47,002 79,254
20 Feinstein, D. (D-CA)............... 127,521 -50,872 76,649
21 Kennedy, E. (D-MA)................. 127,256 -51,079 76,177
22 Heflin, H. (D-AL).................. 133,490 -57,768 75,722
23 Harkin, T. (D-IA).................. 140,062 -64,432 75,630
24 Campbell, B. (D-CO)................ 127,361 -51,818 75,543
25 Moynihan, D. (D-NY)................ 129,613 -54,602 75,011
26 Mitchell, G. (D-ME)................ 127,308 -52,668 74,640
27 Byrd, R. (D-WV).................... 128,325 -53,869 74,456
28 Mathews, H. (D-TN)................. 129,125 -56,887 72,238
29 Sasser, J. (D-TN).................. 132,719 -60,681 72,038
30 Wofford, H. (D-PA)................. 132,613 -61,662 70,951
31 Bradley, B. (D-NJ)................. 129,639 -59,336 70,303
32 Leahy, P. (D-VT)................... 134,144 -64,377 69,767
33 Bingaman, J. (D-NM)................ 125,602 -56,267 69,335
34 Bumpers, D. (D-AR)................. 133,128 -65,901 67,227
[[Page H4198]]
VOTE TALLY MEMBER REPORT SORTED BY NET SPENDING--SENATE--Continued
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress
(Figures in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name, party, and state Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 Dorgan, B. (D-ND).................. 132,900 -66,454 66,446
36 Levin, C. (D-MI)................... 127,302 -61,756 66,046
37 Kerry, J. (D-MA)................... 127,332 -62,446 64,886
38 Hollings, E. (D-SC)................ 126,315 -62,298 64,017
39 Pryor, D. (D-AR)................... 130,534 -66,918 63,616
40 Pell, C. (D-RI).................... 121,372 -58,847 62,525
41 Lautenberg, F. (D-NJ).............. 136,633 -74,425 62,208
42 Conrad, K. (D-ND).................. 131,665 -70,587 61,078
43 Nunn, S. (D-GA).................... 127,354 -69,730 57,624
44 Graham, B. (D-FL).................. 129,093 -71,883 57,210
45 Simon, P. (D-IL)................... 134,777 -82,337 52,440
46 Metzenbaum, H. (D-OH).............. 122,709 -71,661 51,048
47 Baucus, M. (D-MT).................. 129,869 -79,774 50,095
48 Jeffords, J. (R-VT)................ 127,492 -79,181 48,311
49 Feingold, R. (D-WI)................ 126,993 -81,812 45,121
50 Robb, C. (D-VA).................... 127,304 -84,096 43,208
51 DeConcini, D. (D-AZ)............... 137,832 -95,895 41,937
52 Exon, J. (D-NE).................... 130,612 -89,195 41,417
53 Kerrey, B. (D-NE).................. 127,183 -95,574 31,609
54 Hutchison, K. (R-TX)............... 112,902 -84,690 28,212
55 Lieberman, J. (D-CT)............... 122,816 -95,098 27,718
56 Boren, D. (D-OK)................... 126,528 -100,581 25,947
57 Hatfield, M. (R-OR)................ 112,727 -86,919 25,808
58 Shelby, R. (D-AL).................. 117,660 -92,487 25,173
59 Stevens, T. (R-AK)................. 122,046 -97,887 24,159
60 Specter, A. (R-PA)................. 124,538 -100,781 23,757
61 Kohl, H. (D-WI).................... 124,700 -103,945 20,755
62 Cochran, T. (R-MS)................. 117,697 -101,611 16,086
63 Gorton, S. (R-WA).................. 119,839 -108,973 10,866
64 Bond, C. (R-MO).................... 117,452 -112,300 5,152
65 McConnell, M. (R-KY)............... 117,608 -113,755 3,853
66 Lott, T. (R-MS).................... 115,558 -113,289 2,269
67 Domenici, P. (R-NM)................ 113,763 -113,076 687
68 Bennett, R. (R-UT)................. 118,656 -118,998 -342
69 Gramm, P. (R-TX)................... 116,963 -117,343 -380
70 Hatch, O. (R-UT)................... 118,376 -119,900 -1,524
71 Burns, C. (R-MT)................... 116,079 -118,112 -2,033
72 D'Amato, A. (R-NY)................. 119,056 -121,381 -2,325
73 Thurmond, S. (R-SC)................ 117,863 -120,618 -2,755
74 Wallop, M. (R-WY).................. 96,189 -100,419 -4,230
75 Lugar, R. (R-IN)................... 115,399 -120,289 -4,890
76 Dole, B. (R-KS).................... 117,684 -122,677 -4,993
77 Pressler, L. (R-SD)................ 113,502 -119,079 -5,577
78 Danforth, J. (R-MO)................ 119,264 -127,421 -8,157
79 Murkowski, F. (R-AK)............... 111,051 -120,295 -9,244
80 Durenberger, D. (R-MN)............. 113,712 -122,966 -9,254
81 Coats, D. (R-IN)................... 111,932 -121,410 -9,478
82 Packwood, B. (R-OR)................ 110,030 -121,330 -11,300
83 Kassebaum, N. (R-KS)............... 120,090 -133,058 -12,968
84 Chafee, J. (R-RI).................. 122,158 -136,007 -13,849
85 Warner, J. (R-VA).................. 104,460 -121,462 -17,002
86 Roth, W. (R-DE).................... 95,926 -114,511 -18,585
87 Helms, J. (R-NC)................... 91,567 -112,912 -21,345
88 Kempthorne, D. (R-ID).............. 115,281 -137,160 -21,879
89 Craig, L. (R-ID)................... 115,251 -137,160 -21,909
90 McCain, J. (R-AZ).................. 111,698 -139,708 -28,010
91 Cohen, W. (R-ME)................... 116,295 -146,117 -29,822
92 Mack, C. (R-FL).................... 113,043 -143,972 -30,929
93 Coverdell, P. (R-GA)............... 111,795 -142,899 -31,104
94 Simpson, A. (R-WY)................. 98,332 -130,480 -32,148
95 Nickles, D. (R-OK)................. 108,958 -142,761 -33,803
96 Grassley, C. (R-IA)................ 117,692 -152,677 -34,985
97 Faircloth, L. (R-NC)............... 103,531 -139,538 -36,007
98 Brown, H. (R-CO)................... 103,040 -140,292 -37,252
99 Gregg, J. (R-NJ)................... 103,600 -144,296 -40,696
100 Smith, R. (R-NH).................. 91,214 -136,976 -45,762
VOTE TALLY MEMBER REPORT SORTED BY NET SPENDING--HOUSE
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress (figures in
millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Tejeda, F. (TX)--D................. 141,363 (47,773) 93,590
2 Murtha, J. (PA)--D................. 140,545 (47,492) 93,053
3 Boehlert, S. (NY)--R............... 136,912 (45,270) 91,642
4 Gonzalez, H. (TX)--D............... 140,382 (49,191) 91,191
5 Clement, B. (TN)--D................ 131,474 (43,068) 88,406
6 Chapman, J. (TX)--D................ 139,177 (51,602) 87,575
7 Wise, B. (WV)--D................... 133,297 (47,577) 85,720
8 Fazio, V. (CA)--D.................. 133,278 (47,609) 85,669
9 Dicks, N. (WA)--D.................. 133,328 (47,767) 85,561
10 Darden, G. (GA)--D................ 133,263 (47,811) 85,452
11 Peterson, P. (FL)--D.............. 133,241 (47,789) 85,452
12 Bevill, T. (AL)--D................ 133,165 (47,841) 85,324
13 Manton, T. (NY)--D................ 133,056 (57,900) 85,156
14 Meek, C. (FL)--D.................. 132,765 (47,663) 85,102
15 Ortiz, S. (TX)--D................. 132,218 (47,340) 84,878
16 Swift, A. (WA)--D................. 132,523 (48,140) 84,383
17 Hoyer, S. (MD)--D................. 133,222 (48,893) 84,329
18 Brown, C. (FL)--D................. 133,224 (49,213) 84,011
19 DeLauro, R. (CI)--D............... 133,097 (49,205) 83,892
20 Berman, H. (CA)--D................ 133,124 (49,327) 83,797
21 Kennelly, B. (CT)--D.............. 133,256 (49,553) 83,703
22 Cramer, R. (AL)--D................ 131,079 (47,836) 83,243
23 Lancaster, H. (NC)--D............. 141,669 (59,515) 82,154
24 Roybal-Allard, L. (CA)--D......... 132,591 (50,597) 81,994
25 Smith, N. (IA)--D................. 130,221 (48,374) 81,847
26 Gephardt, R. (MO)--D.............. 133,462 (51,699) 81,763
27 Hall, T. (OH)--D.................. 135,102 (53,743) 81,359
28 Sawyer, T. (OH)--D................ 133,549 (52,280) 81,269
29 de la Garza, E (TX)--D............ 132,460 (51,281) 81,179
30 Gibbons, S. (FL)--D............... 131,598 (50,571) 81,027
31 Glickman, D. (KS)--D.............. 131,011 (50,128) 80,883
32 Price, D. (NC)--D................. 133,572 (53,450) 80,122
33 Moran, J. (VA)--D................. 134,094 (54,248) 79,846
34 Richardson, B. (NM)--D............ 132,345 (52,617) 79,728
35 Spratt, J. (SC)--D................ 133,556 (53,868) 79,688
36 McCloskey, F. (IN)--D............. 133,603 (54,139) 79,464
37 Rose, C. (NC)--D.................. 130,222 (50,862) 79,360
38 Dixon, J. (CA)--D................. 135,695 (56,387) 79,308
39 Whitten, J. (MS)--D............... 130,260 (51,373) 78,887
40 Coleman, R. (TX)--D............... 134,930 (56,112) 78,818
41 Mollohan, A. (WV)--D.............. 127,593 (48,951) 78,642
42 Reed, J. (RI)--D.................. 133,048 (54,455) 78,593
43 Thornton, R. (AR)--D.............. 135,134 (56,709) 78,425
44 Sabo, M. (MN)--D.................. 129,219 (51,210) 78,009
45 Bilbray, J. (NV)--D............... 133,633 (55,667) 77,966
46 Levin, S. (MI)--D................. 133,080 (55,338) 77,742
47 Derrick, B. (SC)--D............... 129,552 (52,095) 77,457
48 Traficant, J. (OH)--D............. 132,239 (54,813) 77,426
49 Rogers, H. (KY)--R................ 129,359 (52,075) 77,284
50 Matsui, R. (CA)--D................ 134,510 (57,291) 77,219
51 Ackerman, G. (NY)--D.............. 131,956 (54,784) 77,172
52 Volkmer, H. (MO)--D............... 131,029 (54,470) 76,559
53 Skelton, I. (MO)--D............... 130,804 (55,373) 75,431
54 Pickett, O. (VA)--D............... 110,525 (35,608) 74,917
55 Edwards, C. (TX)--D............... 129,826 (54,946) 74,880
56 Brooks, J. (TX)--D................ 133,173 (58,641) 74,532
57 Harman, J. (CA)--D................ 132,362 (57,848) 74,514
58 Clyburn, J. (SC)--D............... 133,732 (60,148) 73,584
59 Mineta, N. (CA)--D................ 131,362 (57,945) 73,417
60 Bentley, H. (MD)--R............... 112,601 (39,832) 72,769
61 Johnston, H. (FL)--D.............. 130,685 (58,569) 71,116
62 Stokes, L. (OH)--D................ 131,023 (59,011) 72,012
63 Bishop, S. (GA)--D................ 133,046 (61,705) 71,341
64 Laughlin, G. (TX)--D.............. 129,656 (58,974) 70,682
65 McNulty, M. (NY)--D............... 132,851 (62,223) 70,628
66 Synar, M. (OK)--D................. 129,921 (59,423) 70,498
67 Clayton, E. (NC)--D............... 130,160 (59,698) 70,462
68 Sarpalius, B. (TX)--D............. 136,659 (67,164) 69,495
69 Beilenson, A. (CA)--D............. 123,210 (54,085) 69,125
70 Olver, J. (MA)--D................. 136,248 (67,248) 69,000
71 Williams, P. (MI)--D.............. 138,000 (69,030) 68,970
72 Morella, C. (MD)--R............... 116,854 (48,097) 68,757
73 Gejdenson, S. (CT)--D............. 133,578 (64,972) 68,606
74 Conyers, J. (MI)--D............... 126,861 (58,795) 68,066
75 Rostenkowski, D. (IL)--D.......... 134,763 (66,907) 67,856
76 Hamilton, L. (IN)--D.............. 133,806 (66,170) 67,636
77 Jefferson, W. (LA)--D............. 133,276 (65,803) 67,473
78 Torres, E. (CA)--D................ 133,372 (66,328) 67,044
79 Sisisky, N. (VA)--D............... 117,136 (50,586) 66,550
80 Cantwell, M. (WA)--D.............. 133,291 (66,938) 66,353
81 Machtley, R. (RI)--R.............. 117,118 (50,818) 66,300
82 Mfume, K. (MD)--D................. 135,916 (69,644) 66,272
83 Diaz-Balart, L. (FL)--R........... 105,349 (39,199) 66,150
84 Scott, R. (VA)--D................. 129,072 (62,932) 66,140
85 Maloney, C. (NY)--D............... 133,215 (67,248) 65,967
86 Lipinski, W. (IL)--D.............. 135,707 (69,875) 65,832
87 Danner, P. (MO)--D................ 136,122 (70,370) 65,752
88 Hochbrueckner (NY)--D............. 130,549 (64,845) 65,704
89 Nadler, J. (NY)--D................ 132,948 (67,379) 65,569
90 Mazzoli, R. (KY)--D............... 133,475 (67,925) 65,550
91 Lantos, T. (CA)--D................ 132,565 (67,248) 65,317
92 Browder, G. (AL)--D............... 132,765 (67,654) 65,111
93 Klein, H. (NJ)--D................. 132,260 (68,715) 63,545
94 Visclosky, P. (IN)--D............. 133,488 (70,124) 63,364
95 Brown, G. (CA)--D................. 131,062 (67,969) 63,093
96 Waxman, H. (CA)--D................ 129,495 (66,453) 63,042
97 Reynolds, M. (IL)--D.............. 133,322 (70,340) 62,982
98 Kildee, D. (MI)--D................ 133,729 (71,150) 62,579
99 LaFalce, J. (NY)--D............... 132,956 (70,487) 62,469
100 Fowler, T. (FL)--R............... 117,511 (55,120) 62,391
101 Blackwell, L. (PA)--D............ 133,043 (70,656) 62,387
102 English, K. (AZ)--D.............. 131,824 (69,704) 62,120
103 Spence, F. (SC)--R............... 103,080 (40,981) 62,099
104 Frost, M. (TX)--D................ 133,070 (71,340) 61,730
105 Boucher, R. (VA)--D.............. 134,942 (73,222) 61,720
106 Dingell, J. (MI)--D.............. 131,236 (69,533) 61,703
107 Applegate, D. (OH)--D............ 129,120 (68,370) 60,750
108 Tucker, W. (CA)--D............... 130,908 (70,253) 60,655
109 Skaggs, D. (CO)--D............... 133,458 (72,811) 60,647
110 Woolsey, L. (CA)--D.............. 135,699 (75,289) 60,410
111 Foglietta, T. (PA)--D............ 133,448 (73,070) 60,378
112 Martinez, M. (CA)--D............. 135,563 (75,388) 60,175
113 Pickle, J. (TX)--D............... 131,819 (71,968) 59,851
114 Filner, B. (CA)--D............... 130,125 (70,313) 59,812
115 Rahall, N. (WV)--D............... 130,704 (70,898) 59,806
116 Lehman, R. (CA)--D............... 127,920 (68,375) 59,545
117 Borski, R. (PA)--D............... 135,626 (76,251) 59,375
118 Shepherd, K. (UT)--D............. 130,880 (71,552) 59,328
119 Wilson, C. (TX)--D............... 132,332 (73,141) 59,191
120 Carr, B. (MI)--D................. 132,782 (73,805) 58,977
121 McCurdy, D. (OK)--D.............. 129,871 (70,988) 58,883
122 Hastings, A. (FL)--D............. 124,611 (65,777) 58,834
123 Waters, M. (CA)--D............... 128,403 (69,625) 58,778
124 Roemer, T. (IN)--D............... 115,914 (57,139) 58,775
125 Mink, P. (HI)--D................. 133,951 (75,239) 58,712
126 Collins, B. (MI)--D.............. 130,646 (72,086) 58,560
127 Gordon, B. (TN)--D............... 133,005 (74,449) 58,556
128 Johnson, E. (TX)--D.............. 135,851 (77,427) 58,424
129 Bonior, D. (MI)--D............... 135,494 (77,509) 57,985
130 Hughes, W. (NJ)--D............... 122,142 (64,546) 57,596
131 Pelosi, N. (CA)--D............... 136,146 (78,669) 57,477
132 Hilliard, E. (AL)--D............. 127,840 (70,623) 57,217
133 Deutsch, P. (FL)--D.............. 135,305 (78,163) 57,142
134 Baesler, S. (KY)--D.............. 131,843 (74,887) 56,956
135 Ford, H. (TN)--D................. 112,243 (55,410) 56,833
136 Hamburg, D. (CA)--D.............. 131,907 (75,315) 56,592
137 Towns, E. (NY)--D................ 131,897 (75,597) 56,300
138 Lowey, N. (NY)--D................ 136,236 (80,007) 56,229
139 Neal, R. (MA)--D................. 135,123 (78,926) 56,197
140 Eshoo, A. (CA)--D................ 134,752 (79,068) 55,684
141 Swett, D. (NH)--D................ 131,083 (75,590) 55,493
142 Abercrombie, N. (HI)--D.......... 136,002 (80,623) 55,379
143 Kleczka, G. (WI)--D.............. 136,083 (80,769) 55,314
144 Ford, W. (MI)--D................. 127,978 (72,795) 55,183
145 Gutierrez, L. (IL)--D............ 127,792 (72,618) 55,174
146 Hefner, W. (NC)--D............... 135,846 (80,675) 55,171
147 Huffington, M. (CA)--R........... 94,862 (39,830) 55,032
148 Wynn, A. (MD)--D................. 136,193 (81,292) 54,901
149 Lloyd, M. (IN)--D................ 128,944 (74,208) 54,736
150 Schumer, C. (NY)--D.............. 135,227 (80,604) 54,623
151 Pallone, E. (NJ)--D.............. 113,692 (59,576) 54,116
152 Coppersmith, S. (AZ)--D.......... 117,093 (63,054) 54,039
153 Engel, E. (NY)--D................ 135,678 (81,675) 54,003
154 Hinchey, M. (NY)--D.............. 135,659 (81,733) 53,926
155 Thurman, K. (FL)--D.............. 132,997 (79,204) 53,793
156 McDermott, J. (WA)--D............ 134,667 (80,927) 53,740
157 Sharp, P. (IN)--D................ 131,236 (77,679) 53,557
158 Schenk, L. (CA)--D............... 133,606 (80,147) 53,459
159 Costello, J. (IL)--D............. 134,522 (81,139) 53,383
160 Byrne, L. (VA)--D................ 131,385 (78,014) 53,371
161 Kopetski, M. (OR)--D............. 130,335 (77,141) 53,194
162 Gilman, B. (NY)--R............... 110,441 (57,314) 53,127
163 Obey, D. (WI)--D................. 136,075 (82,955) 53,120
164 Menendez, R. (NJ)--D............. 133,872 (80,884) 52,988
165 Bryant, J. (TX)--D............... 133,135 (80,232) 52,903
166 Slaughter, L. (NY)--D............ 136,055 (83,249) 52,806
167 Kanjorski, P. (PA)--D............ 136,145 (83,549) 52,596
168 Gillmor, P. (OH)--R.............. 113,401 (60,947) 52,454
169 Kennedy, J. (MA)--D.............. 135,871 (83,428) 52,443
170 Coyne, W. (PA)--D................ 136,205 (84,074) 52,131
171 Durbin, R. (IL)--D............... 135,331 (83,300) 52,031
172 Bacchus, J. (FL)--D.............. 132,887 (80,920) 51,967
173 Furse, E. (OR)--D................ 134,727 (82,816) 51,911
174 Edwards, D. (CA)--D.............. 124,699 (72,855) 51,844
175 Markey, E. (MA)--D............... 136,201 (84,477) 51,724
176 Fields, C. (LA)--D............... 136,243 (84,672) 51,571
177 Andrews, M. (TX)--D.............. 124,106 (72,551) 51,555
178 Studds, G. (MA)--D............... 135,994 (84,675) 51,319
179 Johnson, T. (SD)--D.............. 134,057 (82,854) 51,203
180 Young, D. (AK)--R................ 107,842 (56,885) 50,957
181 Neal, S. (NC)--D................. 116,769 (65,916) 50,853
182 Unsoeld, J. (WA)--D.............. 136,071 (85,252) 50,819
183 Strickland, T. (OH)--D........... 136,034 (85,400) 50,634
184 Evans, L. (IL)--D................ 136,045 (85,511) 50,534
185 Yates, S. (IL)--D................ 135,744 (85,592) 50,152
186 Stupak, B. (MI)--D............... 135,875 (85,738) 50,137
187 Lewis, J. (GA)--D................ 131,820 (81,783) 50,037
188 Sanders, B. (VT)--I.............. 128,991 (79,303) 49,688
189 Moakley, J. (MA)--D.............. 129,582 (80,030) 49,552
190 Brewster, B. (OK)--D............. 108,809 (59,262) 49,547
191 Mann, D. (OH)--D................. 111,590 (62,197) 49,393
192 Clay, W. (MO)--D................. 126,983 (77,654) 49,329
193 Vucanovich, B. (NV)--R........... 109,877 (60,553) 49,324
194 Walsh, J. (NY)--R................ 132,037 (83,063) 48,974
195 Barlow, T. (KY)--D............... 133,075 (84,133) 48,942
196 Kaptur, M. (OH)--D............... 135,191 (86,679) 48,512
197 Andrews, T. (ME)--D.............. 134,168 (85,669) 48,499
198 Parker, M. (MS)--D............... 117,776 (69,297) 48,479
199 Montgomery, G. (MS)--D........... 122,661 (74,247) 48,414
200 Payne, L. (VA)--D................ 126,508 (78,141) 48,367
201 Emerson, B. (MO)--R.............. 105,584 (57,296) 48,288
202 Wheat, A. (MO)--D................ 133,071 (84,832) 48,239
203 Ros-Lehtinen, I. (FL)--R......... 101,273 (53,047) 48,226
204 Slattery, J. (KS)--D............. 125,991 (78,020) 47,971
205 Becerra, X. (CA)--D.............. 134,083 (86,337) 47,746
206 Leach, J. (IA)--R................ 111,274 (63,586) 47,688
207 Combest, L. (TX)--R.............. 86,879 (39,267) 47,612
208 McKinney, C. (GA)--D............. 132,747 (85,370) 47,377
209 Flake, F. (NY)--D................ 134,476 (87,420) 47,056
210 Cooper, J. (TN)--D............... 130,486 (83,481) 47,005
211 Rangel, C. (NY)--D............... 126,757 (79,759) 46,998
212 Smith, B. (OR)--R................ 76,561 (29,600) 46,961
213 Oberstar, J. (MN)--D............. 129,767 (82,993) 46,834
214 Vento, B. (MN)--D................ 131,653 (84,926) 46,727
215 Watt, M. (NC)--D................. 131,786 (85,282) 46,504
216 Pomeroy, E. (ND)--D.............. 133,784 (87,344) 46,440
217 Pastor, E. (AZ)--D............... 128,259 (81,835) 46,424
218 Tanner, J. (TN)--D............... 131,670 (85,516) 46,154
219 Payne, D. (NJ)--D................ 131,116 (85,294) 45,822
220 Miller, G. (CA)--D............... 134,447 (88,752) 45,695
221 Hoagland, P. (NE)--D............. 132,702 (87,191) 45,511
222 Johnson, D. (GA)--D.............. 131,875 (87,544) 44,331
223 Rush, B. (IL)--D................. 131,997 (87,780) 44,217
224 Holden, T. (PA)--D............... 136,034 (92,293) 43,741
225 Kreidler, M. (WA)--D............. 135,965 (92,527) 43,438
226 Owens, M. (NY)--D................ 121,084 (77,737) 43,347
227 Lightfoot, J. (IA)--R............ 96,061 (52,927) 43,134
228 Barcia, J. (MI)--D............... 132,669 (89,812) 42,857
229 Geren, P. (TX)--D................ 113,248 (70,661) 42,587
230 Stark, P. (CA)--D................ 128,276 (86,378) 41,898
231 Collins, C. (IL)--D.............. 117,579 (75,819) 41,760
232 Bereuter, D. (NE)--R............. 94,106 (52,443) 41,663
233 Regula, R. (OH)--R............... 115,493 (74,188) 41,305
234 Roukema, M. (NJ)--R.............. 98,215 (57,205) 41,010
235 Hayes, J. (LA)--D................ 109,938 (69,222) 40,716
236 Brown, S. (OH)--D................ 136,089 (95,756) 40,333
237 Torricelli, R. (NJ)--D........... 133,861 (93,755) 40,106
238 Sangmeister, G. (IL)--D.......... 136,095 (96,172) 39,923
239 Stearns, C. (FL)--R.............. 89,425 (49,647) 39,778
240 Serrano, J. (NY)--D.............. 127,638 (87,924) 39,714
241 Foley, T. (WA)--D................ 75,302 (35,590) 39,712
242 Molinari, S. (NY)--R............. 112,661 (73,230) 39,431
243 Kim, J. (CA)--R.................. 112,313 (73,194) 39,119
[[Page H4199]]
VOTE TALLY MEMBER REPORT SORTED BY NET SPENDING--HOUSE--Continued
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress (figures in
millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
244 Dellums, R. (CA)--D.............. 174,443 (85,450) 38,993
245 Wyden, R. (OR)--D................ 126,217 (87,274) 38,943
246 Deal, N. (GA)--D................. 118,788 (80,398) 38,390
247 Klink, R. (PA)--D................ 136,088 (97,919) 38,169
248 Torkildsen, P. (MA)--R........... 119,938 (81,861) 38,077
249 Green, G. (TX)--D................ 117,418 (79,844) 37,574
250 Barrett, T. (WI)--D.............. 129,832 (92,871) 36,961
251 Skeen, J. (NM)--R................ 112,479 (75,564) 36,915
252 Rowland, J. (GA)--D.............. 109,857 (73,388) 36,469
253 Cardin, B. (MD)--D............... 133,856 (97,578) 36,278
254 Velazquez, N. (NY)--D............ 127,188 (90,925) 36,263
255 Frank, B. (MA)--D................ 124,628 (88,555) 36,073
256 Snowe, O. (ME)--R................ 123,710 (87,709) 36,001
257 Farr, S. (CA)--D................. 109,731 (73,906) 35,825
258 Roberts, P. (KS)--R.............. 89,179 (53,720) 35,459
259 Thompson, B. (MS)--D............. 111,728 (76,771) 34,957
260 Barrett, B. (NE)--R.............. 98,965 (64,067) 34,898
261 McHale, P. (PA)--D............... 135,817 (101,176) 34,641
262 Clinger, W. (PA)--R.............. 104,552 (71,143) 33,409
263 Smith, C. (NJ)--R................ 119,676 (86,449) 33,227
264 Bateman, H. (VA)--R.............. 106,621 (73,802) 32,819
265 Lazio, R. (NY)--R................ 101,259 (68,809) 32,450
266 Callahan, S. (AL)--R............. 83,227 (50,907) 32,320
267 Andrews, R. (NJ)--D.............. 118,812 (86,934) 31,878
268 McDade, J. (PA)--R............... 109,525 (78,081) 31,444
269 Jacobs, A. (IN)--D............... 114,071 (83,108) 30,963
270 Canady C. (FL)--R................ 94,433 (63,566) 30,867
271 Washington, C. (TX)--D........... 98,221 (67,452) 30,769
272 DeFazio, P. (OR)--D.............. 112,003 (81,768) 30,235
273 Levy, D. (NY)--R................. 97,636 (67,711) 29,925
274 Long, J. (IN)--D................. 134,135 (104,384) 29,751
275 Hefley, J. (CO)--R............... 74,007 (44,367) 29,640
276 King, P. (NY)--R................. 94,194 (64,718) 29,476
277 Gilchrest, T. (MD)--R............ 117,374 (88,017) 29,357
278 Dornan, R. (CA)--R............... 70,554 (41,368) 29,186
279 Allard, W. (CO)--R............... 76,951 (47,788) 29,163
280 Lewis, J. (CA)--R................ 107,912 (78,838) 29,074
281 Houghton, A. (NY)--R............. 113,776 (85,066) 28,710
282 Stump, B. (AZ)--R................ 69,828 (41,271) 28,577
283 Dooley, C. (CA)--D............... 130,330 (102,428) 27,902
284 Inslee, J. (WA)--D............... 134,108 (106,326) 27,782
285 Hall, R. (TX)--D................. 103,847 (76,141) 27,706
286 Fish, H. (NY)--R................. 115,328 (87,667) 27,661
287 Kingston, J. (GA)--R............. 87,286 (59,930) 27,356
288 Grandy, F. (IA)--R............... 102,787 (77,665) 25,122
289 McHugh, J. (NY)--R............... 95,105 (70,325) 24,780
290 Fingerhut, E. (OH)--D............ 113,373 (88,677) 24,696
291 Calvert, K. (CA)--R.............. 101,960 (77,478) 24,482
292 Poshard, G. (IL)--D.............. 133,523 (109,126) 24,397
293 Blute, P. (MA)--R................ 117,151 (92,971) 24,180
294 Burton, D. (IN)--R............... 81,826 (57,877) 23,939
295 Schroeder, P. (CO)--D............ 117,890 (94,438) 23,452
296 Minge, D. (MN)--D................ 116,973 (93,856) 23,117
297 Margolies-Mezv, (PA)--D.......... 117,351 (94,689) 22,262
298 Bartlett, R. (MD)--R............. 90,787 (68,774) 22,013
299 Orton, B. (UT)--D................ 98,477 (76,968) 21,509
300 Gallo, D. (NJ)--R................ 102,380 (81,200) 21,180
301 Murphy, A. (PA)--D............... 117,285 (96,225) 21,060
302 McCollum, B. (FL)--R............. 86,428 (66,143) 20,295
303 Bilirakis, M. (FL)--R............ 111,730 (91,474) 20,256
304 Larocco, L. (ID)--D.............. 131,628 (112,089) 19,539
305 Hutto, E. (FL)--D................ 98,320 (79,123) 19,197
306 Livingston, R. (LA)--R........... 106,973 (88,408) 18,565
307 Hyde, H. (IL)--R................. 94,185 (76,478) 17,707
308 Young, C. (FL)--R................ 112,386 (94,847) 17,539
309 Goodlatte, R. (VA)--R............ 74,768 (57,421) 17,347
310 Kolbe, J. (AZ)--R................ 99,503 (82,210) 17,293
311 Meyers, J. (KS)--R............... 105,890 (89,016) 16,874
312 Valentine, T. (NC)--D............ 111,821 (95,042) 16,779
313 Ridge, T. (PA)--R................ 108,188 (92,187) 16,001
314 Hoekstra, P. (MI)--R............. 96,995 (81,066) 15,929
315 McCandless, A. (CA)--R........... 80,914 (65,005) 15,909
316 Smith, L. (TX)--R................ 94,953 (79,108) 15,845
317 Dunn, J. (WA)--R................. 82,033 (66,335) 15,698
318 Condit, G. (CA)--D............... 111,786 (96,357) 15,429
319 Lambert, B. (AR)--D.............. 134,547 (119,193) 15,354
320 Archer, B. (TX)--R............... 59,069 (43,841) 15,228
321 Peterson, C. (MN)--D............. 117,450 (102,774) 14,676
322 Meehan, M. (MA)--D............... 135,375 (120,729) 14,646
323 Mcinnis, S. (CO)--R.............. 72,873 (58,742) 14,131
324 McCrery, J. (LA)--R.............. 100,333 (86,945) 13,388
325 Hancock, M. (MO)--R.............. 58,513 (45,127) 13,386
326 Buyer, S. (IN)--R................ 94,089 (81,664) 12,425
327 Zekuff, B. (NH)--R............... 79,479 (67,294) 12,176
328 Tauzin, W. (LA)--D............... 112,409 (100,269) 12,140
329 Shaw, E. (FL)--R................. 97,003 (85,295) 11,708
330 Hastert, D. (IL)--R.............. 96,879 (85,496) 11,383
331 Ravenel, A. (SC)--R.............. 116,390 (105,123) 11,267
332 Thomas, B. (CA)--R............... 98,510 (87,775) 10,735
333 Quinn, J. (NY)--R................ 96,639 (86,354) 10,285
334 Taylor, G. (MS)--D............... 97,103 (86,878) 10,225
335 Franks, G. (CT)--R............... 99,359 (89,472) 9,887
336 Baker, R. (LA)--R................ 93,284 (83,613) 9,671
337 Horn, S. (CA)--R................. 109,439 (100,148) 9,281
338 Talent, J. (MO)--R............... 87,618 (78,445) 9,173
339 Gallegly, E. (CA)--R............. 97,808 (88,778) 9,030
340 Myers, J. (IN)--R................ 92,448 (83,657) 8,791
341 Gunderson, S. (WI)--R............ 97,717 (88,982) 8,735
342 Klug, S. (WI)--R................. 88,482 (79,847) 8,635
343 Quilen, J. (TN)--R............... 92,083 (83,848) 8,235
344 Mckeon, H. (CA)--R............... 88,758 (80,696) 8,062
345 Pryce, D. (OH)--R................ 107,963 (99,910) 8,053
346 Oxley, M. (OH)--R................ 86,516 (79,548) 6,968
347 Knollenberg, J. (MI)--R.......... 75,492 (69,738) 5,754
348 Kyl, J. (AZ)--R.................. 81,769 (76,110) 5,659
349 Hobson, D. (OH)--R............... 107,143 (101,560) 5,583
350 Linder, J. (GA)--R............... 83,347 (78,226) 5,121
351 Saxton, H. (NJ)--R............... 96,489 (91,386) 5,103
352 Boehner, J. (OH)--R.............. 71,804 (66,717) 5,087
353 Dickey, J. (AR)--R............... 91,151 (86,130) 5,021
354 Goodling, B. (PA)--R............. 98,168 (93,254) 4,914
355 Kasich, J. (OH)--r............... 93,919 (89,098) 4,821
356 Weldon, C. (PA)--R............... 91,001 (86,258) 4,743
357 Sundquist, D. (IN)--R............ 96,191 (91,745) 4,446
358 Hutchinson, T. (AR)--R........... 94,931 (90,577) 4,354
359 Wolf, F. (VA)--R................. 94,060 (90,009) 4,051
360 Castle, M. (DE)--R............... 89,461 (85,686) 3,775
361 Lewis, T. (FL)--R................ 82,691 (79,105) 3,586
362 Porter, J. (IL)--R............... 96,466 (93,657) 2,809
363 Crapo, M. (ID)--R................ 74,138 (71,766) 2,372
364 Bonilla, H. (TX)--R.............. 95,946 (94,297) 1,649
365 Penny, T. (MN)--D................ 111,140 (110,111) 1,029
366 Goss, P. (FL)--R................. 71,039 (70,567) 472
367 Gingrich, N. (GA)--R............. 84,287 (83,872) 415
368 Fields, J. (TX)--R............... 65,879 (65,861) 18
369 Stenholm, C. (TX)--D............. 92,638 (92,702) (64)
370 Cox, C. (CA)--R.................. 69,678 (69,808) (130)
371 Manzullo, D. (IL)--R............. 84,545 (85,360) (815)
372 Delay, T. (TX)--R................ 72,114 (73,433) (1,319)
373 Taylor, C. (NC)--R............... 75,562 (76,931) (1,369)
374 Schaefer, D. (CO)--R............. 62,397 (64,193) (1,796)
375 Armey, D. (TX)--R................ 66,063 (67,890) (1,827)
376 Bacgus, S. (AL)--R............... 76,529 (79,254) (2,725)
377 Schiff, S. (NM)--R............... 96,741 (99,656) (2,915)
378 Baker, B. (CA)--R................ 74,768 (77,838) (3,070)
379 Shuster, B. (PA)--R.............. 81,291 (84,389) (3,098)
380 Mica, J. (FL)--R................. 83,082 (86,383) (3,301)
380 Grams, R. (MN)--R................ 66,974 (70,275) (3,301)
382 Everett, T. (AL)--R.............. 92,379 (95,818) (3,439)
383 Bliley, T. (VA)--R............... 84,660 (88,240) (3,580)
384 Solomon, G. (NY)--R.............. 67,851 (71,579) (3,728)
385 Michel, R. (IL)--R............... 84,049 (87,819) (3,770)
386 Santorum, R. (PA)--R............. 91,135 (94,914) (3,779)
387 Cunningham, R. (CA)--R........... 88,510 (92,438) (3,928)
388 Greenwood, J. (PA)--R............ 103,726 (107,694) (3,968)
389 Inhofe, J. (OK)--R............... 64,351 (68,642) (4,291)
390 Packard, R. (CA)--R.............. 81,520 (85,919) (4,399)
391 Gekas, G. (PA)--R................ 83,847 (88,304) (4,457)
392 Upton, F. (MI)--R................ 113,730 (119,172) (5,442)
393 Johnson, S. (TX)--R.............. 64,697 (71,164) (6,467)
394 Hunter, D. (CA)--R............... 81,272 (88,508) (7,236)
395 Barca, P. (WI)--D................ 98,012 (105,688) (7,676)
396 McMillan, A. (NC)--R............. 100,292 (108,494) (8,202)
397 Walker, R. (PA)--R............... 60,943 (69,783) (8,840)
398 Johnson, N. (CT)--R.............. 98,841 (108,139) (9,298)
399 Fawell, H. (IL)--R............... 78,104 (87,618) (9,514)
400 Moorhead, C. (CA)--R............. 71,534 (82,590) (10,056)
401 Pombo, R. (CA)--R................ 79,667 (90,580) (10,913)
402 Hoke, M. (OH)--R................. 74,439 (85,429) (10,990)
403 Petri, T. (WI)--R................ 65,995 (78,148) (12,153)
404 Thomas, C. (WY)--R............... 80,843 (94,142) (13,299)
405 Collins, M. (GA)--R.............. 75,886 (90,412) (14,526)
406 Franks, B. (NJ)--R............... 83,517 (98,412) (14,895)
407 Dreier, D. (CA)--R............... 68,710 (84,560) (15,850)
408 Inglis, B. (SC)--R............... 72,616 (89,009) (16,393)
409 Istook, E. (OK)--R............... 70,383 (87,137) (16,754)
410 Ewing, T. (IL)--R................ 90,344 (109,384) (19,140)
411 Portman, R. (OH)--R.............. 70,694 (89,944) (19,250)
412 Roth, T. (WI)--R................. 63,570 (83,398) (19,828)
413 Herger, W. (CA)--R............... 71,660 (92,493) (20,833)
414 Smith, N. (MI)--R................ 62,611 (83,827) (21,216)
415 Paxon, B. (NY)--R................ 58,374 (80,005) (21,631)
416 Hansen, J. (UT)--R............... 78,105 (100,181) (22,076)
417 Duncan, J. (TN)--R............... 64,137 (86,559) (22,422)
418 Doolittle, J. (CA)--R............ 66,669 (89,816) (23,147)
419 Ballenger, C. (NC)--R............ 74,183 (97,923) (23,740)
420 Camp, D. (MI)--R................. 95,088 (119,653) (24,565)
421 Shays, C. (CT)--R................ 87,608 (112,645) (25,037)
422 Bunning, J. (KY)--R.............. 61,945 (88,179) (26,234)
423 Miller, D. (FL)--R............... 71,308 (97,554) (26,246)
424 Ramstad, J. (MN)--R.............. 75,533 (102,537) (27,004)
425 Barton, J. (TX)--R............... 63,541 (91,227) (27,686)
426 Zimmer, D. (NJ)--R............... 72,441 (103,701) (31,260)
427 Crane, P. (IL)--R................ 56,922 (88,955) (32,033)
428 Coble, H. (NC)--R................ 79,221 (111,406) (32,185)
429 Rohrabacher, D. (CA)--R.......... 68,584 (105,546) (36,962)
430 Royce, E. (CA)--R................ 72,229 (110,243) (38,014)
431 Nussle, J. (IA)--R............... 77,293 (116,620) (39,327)
432 Sensenbrenner, F. (WI)--R........ 56,113 (106,430) (50,317)
VOTE TALLY STATE DELEGATION REPORT
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress (figures in
millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
Heflin (D-AL)........................ 133,490 (57,768) 75,722
Shelby (D-AL)........................ 117,660 (92,487) 25,173
Bachus (R-AL)........................ 76,529 (79,254) (2,725)
Bevill (D-AL)........................ 133,163 (47,841) 85,324
Browder (D-AL)....................... 132,765 (67,654) 65,111
Calahan (R-AL)....................... 83,227 (50,907) 32,320
Cramer (D-AL)........................ 131,079 (47,836) 83,243
Everett (R-AL)....................... 92,379 (95,818) 3,439
Hilliard (D-AL)...................... 127,840 (70,623) 57,217
ALASKA
Murkowski (R-AK)..................... 111,051 (120,295) (9,244)
Stevens (R-AK)....................... 122,046 (97,887) 24,159
Young (R-AK)......................... 107,842 (56,885) 50,957
ARIZONA
DeConcini (D-AZ)..................... 137,812 (95,895) 41,937
McCain (R-AZ)........................ 111,698 (139,708) (28,010)
Coppersmith (D-AZ)................... 117,093 (63,054) 54,039
English (D-AZ)....................... 131,824 (69,704) 62,120
Kolbe (R-AZ)......................... 99,503 (82,210) 17,293
Kyl (R-AZ)........................... 81,769 (76,110) 5,659
Pastor (D-AZ)........................ 128,259 (81,835) 46,424
Stump (R-AZ)......................... 69,828 (41,271) 28,557
ARKANSAS
Bumpers (D-AR)....................... 133,128 (65,901) 67,227
Pryor (D-AR)......................... 130,554 (66,918) 63,616
Dickey (R-AR)........................ 91,151 (86,130) 5,021
Hutchinson (R-AR).................... 94,931 (90,577) 4,354
Lambert (D-AR)....................... 134,547 (119,193) 15,354
Thornton (D-AR)...................... 135,134 (56,709) 78,425
CALIFORNIA
Boxer (D-CA)......................... 140,993 (54,218) 86,775
Feinstein (D-CA)..................... 132,138 (51,370) 80,768
Baker (R-CA)......................... 74,799 (78,815) (4,016)
Becerra (D-CA)....................... 137,670 (87,833) 49,837
Beilenson (D-CA)..................... 128,024 (55,597) 72,427
Berman (D-CA)........................ 137,047 (50,800) 86,247
Brown, G (D-CA)...................... 135,173 (65,532) 69,641
Calvert (R-CA)....................... 102,699 (78,647) 24,052
Condit (D-CA)........................ 115,854 (97,670) 18,184
Cox (R-CA)........................... 68,959 (69,864) (905)
Cunningham (R-CA).................... 93,751 (102,314) (8,563)
Dellums (D-CA)....................... 129,203 (86,911) 42,292
Dixon (D-CA)......................... 140,550 (57,899) 82,651
Dooley (D-CA)........................ 135,131 (103,887) 31,244
Doolittle (R-CA)..................... 66,041 (89,544) (23,503)
Dornan (R-CA)........................ 69,447 (41,442) 28,005
Dreier (R-CA)........................ 70,191 (84,277) (14,086)
Edwards, D (D-CA).................... 129,473 (74,367) 55,106
Eshoo (D-CA)......................... 139,611 (80,580) 59,031
Farr (D-CA).......................... 110,293 (68,790) 41,503
Fazio (D-CA)......................... 138,101 (49,121) 88,980
Filner (D-CA)........................ 134,813 (71,825) 62,988
Gallegly (R-CA)...................... 96,618 (89,958) 6,660
Hamburg (D-CA)....................... 133,657 (76,827) 56,830
Harman (D-CA)........................ 137,040 (59,360) 77,680
Herger (R-CA)........................ 72,438 (92,211) (19,783)
Horn (R-CA).......................... 114,207 (101,517) 12,690
Huffington (R-CA).................... 95,233 (39,892) 55,341
Hunter (R-CA)........................ 84,581 (97,514) (12,933)
Kim (R-CA)........................... 112,267 (73,255) 39,012
Lantos (D-CA)........................ 137,512 (68,709) 68,803
Lehman (D-CA)........................ 132,567 (69,735) 62,832
Lewis (R-CA)......................... 108,670 (80,057) 28,613
Martinez (D-CA)...................... 140,397 (76,900) 63,497
Matsui (D-CA)........................ 139,358 (58,752) 80,606
McCandless (R-CA).................... 78,321 (65,268) 13,053
McKeon (R-CA)........................ 86,349 (80,965) 5,384
Miller, G (D-CA)..................... 139,122 (90,264) 48,858
Mineta (D-CA)........................ 136,052 (59,457) 76,595
Moorhead (R-CA)...................... 72,312 (82,318) 10,006
Packard (R-CA)....................... 82,099 (86,177) (4,078)
Pelosi (D-CA)........................ 140,834 (80,181) 60,653
Pombo (R-CA)......................... 76,111 (90,302) (14,191)
Rohrabacher (R-CA)................... 68,473 (105,263) (36,790)
Roybal-Allard (D-CA)................. 137,426 (52,109) 85,317
Royce (R-CA)......................... 71,028 (109,971) (38,943)
Schenk (D-CA)........................ 138,363 (81,659) 36,704
Stark (D-CA)......................... 127,647 (87,829) 39,818
Thomas, B (R-CA)..................... 97,174 (89,012) 8,162
Torres (D-CA)........................ 137,196 (67,840) 69,356
Tucker (D-CA)........................ 136,399 (67,466) 68,933
Waters (D-CA)........................ 133,217 (71,137) 62,080
Waxman (D-CA)........................ 134,328 (67,965) 66,363
Woolsey (D-CA)....................... 140,508 (76,801) 63,707
COLORADO
Brown, H. (R-CO)..................... 103,040 (140,292) (37,252)
Campbell, B. (D-CO).................. 127,361 (51,818) 75,543
Allard (R-CO)........................ 76,951 (47,788) 29,163
Hefley (R-CO)........................ 74,007 (44,367) 29,640
McInnis (R-CO)....................... 72,873 (58,742) 14,131
Schaefer (R-CO)...................... 62,397 (64,193) (1,796)
Schroeder (D-CO)..................... 117,890 (94,.438) 23,452
Skaggs (D-CO)........................ 133,458 (72,811) 60,647
CONNECTICUT
Dodd (D-CT).......................... 126,256 (47,002) 79,254
Lieberman (D-CT)..................... 122,816 (95,098) 27,718
DeLauro (D-CT)....................... 133,097 (49,205) 83,892
Franks (R-CT)........................ 99,359 (89,472) 9,887
Gejdenson (D-CT)..................... 133,578 (64,972) 68,606
Johnson (R-CT)....................... 98,841 (108,139) (9,298)
Kennelly (D-CT)...................... 133,256 (49,553) 83,703
Shays (R-CT)......................... 87,608 (112,645) (25,037)
DELAWARE
Biden (D-DE)......................... 130,708 (46,815) 83,893
Roth (R-DE).......................... 95,926 (114,511) (18,585)
Castle (R-DE)........................ 89,461 (85,686) 3,775
FLORIDA
Graham, B. (D-FL).................... 129,093 (71,883) 57,210
[[Page H4200]]
VOTE TALLY STATE DELEGATION REPORT--Continued
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress (figures in
millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mack (R-FL).......................... 113,043 (143,972) (30,929)
Bacchus (D-FL)....................... 132,887 (80,920) 51,967
Bilirakis (R-FL)..................... 111,730 (91,474) 20,256
Brown (D-FL)......................... 133,224 (49,213) 84,011
Canady (R-FL)........................ 94,433 (63,566) 30,867
Deutsch (D-FL)....................... 135,305 (78,163) 57,142
Diaz-Balart (R-FL)................... 105,349 (39,199) 66,150
Fowler (R-FL)........................ 117,511 (55,120) 62,391
Gibbons (D-FL)....................... 131,598 (50,571) 81,027
Goss (R-FL).......................... 71,039 (70,567) 472
Hastings (D-FL)...................... 124,611 (65,777) 58,834
Hutto (D-FL)......................... 98,320 (79,123) 19,197
Johnston (D-FL)...................... 130,685 (58,569) 72,116
Lewis (R-FL)......................... 82,691 (79,105) 3,586
McCollum (R-FL)...................... 86,438 (66,143) 20,295
Meek (D-FL).......................... 132,765 (47,663) 85,102
Mica (R-FL).......................... 83,082 (86,383) (3,301)
Miller (R-FL)........................ 71,308 (97,554) (26,246)
Peterson (D-FL)...................... 133,241 (47,789) 85,452
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).................. 101,273 (53,047) 48,226
Shaw (R-FL).......................... 97,003 (85,295) 11,708
Stearns (R-FL)....................... 89,425 (49,647) 39,778
Thurman (D-FL)....................... 132,997 (79,204) 53,793
Young (R-FL)......................... 112,386 (94,847) 17,539
GEORGIA
Coverdell (R-GA)..................... 111,795 (142,899) (31,104)
Nunn (D-GA).......................... 127,354 (69,730) 57,624
Bishop (D-GA)........................ 133,046 (61,705) 71,341
Collins (R-GA)....................... 75,886 (90,412) (14,526)
Darden (D-GA)........................ 133,263 (47,811) 85,452
Deal (D-GA).......................... 118,788 (80,398) 38,390
Gingrich (R-GA)...................... 84,287 (83,872) 415
Johnson (D-GA)....................... 131,875 (87,544) 44,331
Kingston (R-GA)...................... 87,286 (59,930) 27,356
Lewis (D-GA)......................... 131,820 (81,783) 50,037
Linder (R-GA)........................ 83,347 (78,226) 5,121
McKinney (D-GA)...................... 132,747 (85,370) 47,377
Rowland (D-GA)....................... 109,857 (73,388) 36,469
HAWAII
Akaka (D-HI)......................... 130,732 (47,884) 82,848
Inouye (D-HI)........................ 130,702 (46,352) 84,350
Abercrombie (D-HI)................... 136,002 (80,623) 55,379
Mink (D-HI).......................... 133,951 (75,239) 58,712
IDAHO
Craig (R-ID)......................... 115,251 (137,160) (21,909)
Kempthorne (R-ID).................... 115,281 (137,160) (21,879)
Crapo (R-ID)......................... 74,138 (71,766) 2,372
LaRocco (D-ID)....................... 131,628 (112,089) 19,539
ILLINOIS
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)................. 134,553 (50,324) 84,229
Simon (D-IL)......................... 134,777 (82,337) 52,440
Collins (D-IL)....................... 117,579 (75,819) 41,760
Costello (D-IL)...................... 134,522 (81,139) 53,383
Crane (R-IL)......................... 56,922 (88,955) (32,033)
Durbin (D-IL)........................ 135,331 (83,300) 52,031
Evans (D-IL)......................... 136,045 (85,511) 50,534
Ewing (R-IL)......................... 90,244 (109,384) (19,140)
Fawell (R-IL)........................ 78,104 (87,618) (9,514)
Gutierrez (D-IL)..................... 127,792 (72,618) 55,174
Hastert (R-IL)....................... 96,879 (85,496) 11,383
Hyde (R-IL).......................... 94,185 (76,478) 17,707
Lipinski (D-IL)...................... 135,707 (69,875) 65,832
Manzullo (R-IL)...................... 84,545 (85,360) (815)
Michel (R-IL)........................ 84,049 (87,819) (3,770)
Porter (R-IL)........................ 96,466 (93,657) 2,809
Poshard (D-IL)....................... 133,523 (109,126) 24,397
Reynolds (D-IL)...................... 133,322 (70,340) 62,982
Rostenkowski (D-IL).................. 134,763 (66,907) 67,856
Rush (D-IL).......................... 131,997 (87,780) 44,217
Sangmeister (D-IL)................... 136,095 (96,172) 39,923
Yates (D-IL)......................... 135,744 (85,592) 50,152
INDIANA
Coats (R-IN)......................... 111,932 (121,410) (9,478)
Lugar (R-IN)......................... 115,399 (120,289) (4,890)
Burton (R-IN)........................ 81,826 (57,887) 23,939
Buyer (R-IN)......................... 94,089 (81,664) 12,425
Hamilton (D-IN)...................... 133,806 (66,170) 67,636
Jacobs (D-IN)........................ 114,071 (83,108) 30,963
Long (D-IN).......................... 134,135 (104,384) 29,751
McCloskey (D-IN)..................... 133,603 (54,139) 79,464
Myers (R-IN)......................... 92,448 (83,657) 8,791
Roemer (D-IN)........................ 115,914 (57,139) 58,775
Sharp (D-IN)......................... 131,236 (77,679) 53,557
Visclosky (D-IN)..................... 133,488 (70,124) 63,364
IOWA
Grassley (R-IA)...................... 117,692 (152,677) (34,985)
Harkin (D-IA)........................ 140,062 (64,432) 75,630
Grandy (R-IA)........................ 102,787 (77,665) 25,122
Leach (R-IA)......................... 111,274 (63,586) 47,688
Lightfoot (R-IA)..................... 96,061 (52,927) 43,134
Nussle (R-IA)........................ 77,293 (116,620) (39,327)
Smith (D-IA)......................... 130,221 (48,374) 81,847
KANSAS
Dole (R-KS).......................... 117,684 (122,677) (4,993)
Kassebaum (R-KS)..................... 120,090 (133.058) (12,968)
Glickman (D-KS)...................... 131,011 (50,128) 80,883
Meyers (R-KS)........................ 105,890 (89,016) 16,874
Roberts (R-KS)....................... 89,179 (53,720) 35,459
Slattery (D-KS)...................... 125,991 (78,020) 47,971
KENTUCKY
Ford (D-KY).......................... 130,732 (49,714) 81,018
McConnell (R-KY)..................... 117,608 (113,755) 3,853
Baesler (D-KY)....................... 131,843 (74,887) 56,956
Barlow (D-KY)........................ 133,075 (84,133) 48,942
Bunning (R-KY)....................... 61,945 (88,179) 26,234
Mazzoli (D-KY)....................... 133,475 (67,925) 65,550
Rogers (R-KY)........................ 129,359 (52,075) 77,284
LOUISIANA
Breaux (D-LA)........................ 130,572 (45,993) 84,579
Johnston (D-LA)...................... 127,122 (31,700) 95,422
Baker (R-LA)......................... 93,284 (83,613) 9,671
Fields (D-LA)........................ 136,243 (84,672) 51,571
Hayes (D-LA)......................... 109,938 (69,222) 40,716
Jefferson (D-LA)..................... 133,276 (65,803) 67,473
Livingston (R-LA).................... 106,973 (88,408) 18,565
McCrery (R-LA)....................... 100,333 (86,945) 13,388
Tauzin (D-LA)........................ 112,409 (100,269) 12,140
MAINE
Cohen (R-ME)......................... 116,295 (146,117) (29,822)
Mitchell (D-ME)...................... 127,308 (52,668) 74,640
Andrews (D-ME)....................... 134,168 (85,669) 48,499
Snowe (R-ME)......................... 123,710 (87,709) 36,001
MARYLAND
Mikulski (D-MD)...................... 128,823 (45,826) 82,997
Sarbanes (D-MD)...................... 127,332 (47,571) 79,761
Bartlett (R-MD)...................... 90,787 (68,774) 22,013
Bentley (R-MD)....................... 112,601 (39,832) 72,769
Cardin (D-MD)........................ 133,856 (97,578) 36,278
Gilchrest (R-MD)..................... 117,374 (88,018) 29,357
Hoyer (D-MD)......................... 133,222 (48,893) 84,329
Mfume (D-MD)......................... 135,916 (69,644) 66,272
Morella (R-MD)....................... 116,854 (48,097) 68,757
Wynn (D-MD).......................... 136,193 (81,292) 54,901
MASSACHUSETTS
Kennedy (D-MA)....................... 127,256 (51,079) 76,177
Kerry J. (D-MA)...................... 127,332 (62,446) 64,886
Blute (R-MA)......................... 117,151 (92,971) 24,180
Frank (D-MA)......................... 124,628 (88,555) 36,073
Kennedy (D-MA)....................... 135,871 (83,428) 52,443
Markey (D-MA)........................ 136,201 (84,477) 51,724
Meehan (D-MA)........................ 135,375 (120,729) 14,646
Moakley (D-MA)....................... 129,582 (80,030) 49,552
Neal (D-MA).......................... 135,123 (78,926) 56,197
Olver (D-MA)......................... 136,248 (67,248) 69,000
Studds (D-MA)........................ 135,994 (84,675) 51,319
Torkildsen (R-MA).................... 119,938 (81,861) 38,077
MICHIGAN
Levin (D-MI)......................... 127,302 (61,256) 66,046
Riegle (D-MI)........................ 128,496 (47,037) 81,459
Barcia (D-MI)........................ 132,669 (89,812) 42,857
Bonior (D-MI)........................ 135,494 (77,509) 57,985
Camp (R-MI).......................... 95,088 (119,653) (24,565)
Carr (D-MI).......................... 132,782 (73,805) 58,977
Collins (D-MI)....................... 130,646 (72,086) 58,560
Conyers (D-MI)....................... 126,861 (58,795) 68,066
Dingell (D-MI)....................... 131,236 (69,533) 61,703
Ford (D-MI).......................... 127,978 (72,795) 55,183
Hoekstra (R-MI)...................... 96,995 (81,066) 15,929
Kildee (D-MI)........................ 133,729 (71,150) 62,579
Knollenberg (R-MI)................... 75,492 (69,738) 5,754
Levin (D-MI)......................... 133,080 (55,338) 77,742
Smith (R-MI)......................... 62,611 (83,827) (21,216)
Stupak (D-MI)........................ 135,875 (85,738) 50,137
Upton (R-MI)......................... 113,730 (119,172) (5,442)
MINNESOTA
Durenberger (R-MN)................... 113,712 (122,966) (9,254)
Wellstone (D-MN)..................... 135,793 (54,280) 81,513
Grams (R-MN)......................... 66,974 (70,275) (3,301)
Minge (D-MN)......................... 116,973 (93,856) 23,117
Oberstar (D-MN)...................... 129,767 (82,933) 46,834
Penny (D-MN)......................... 111,140 (110,111) 1,029
Peterson (D-MN)...................... 117,150 (102,774) 14,676
Ramstad (R-MN)....................... 75,533 (102,537) (27,004)
Sabo (D-MN).......................... 129,219 (51,210) 78,009
Vento (D-MN)......................... 131,653 (84,926) 46,727
MISSISSIPPI
Cochran (R-MS)....................... 117,697 (101,611) 16,086
Lott (R-MS).......................... 115,558 (113,289) 2,269
Montgomery (D-MS).................... 122,661 (74,247) 48,414
Parker (D-MS)........................ 117,776 (69,297) 48,479
Taylor (D-MS)........................ 97,103 (86,878) 10,225
Thompson (D-MS)...................... 111,728 (76,771) 34,957
Whitten (D-MS)....................... 130,260 (51,373) 78,887
MISSOURI
Bond (R-MO).......................... 117,452 (112,300) 5,152
Danforth (R-MO)...................... 119,264 (127,421) (8,157)
Clay (D-MO).......................... 126,983 (77,654) 49,329
Danner (D-MO)........................ 136,122 (70,370) 65,752
Emerson (R-MO)....................... 105,584 (57,296) 48,288
Gephardt (D-MO)...................... 133,462 (51,699) 81,763
Hancock (R-MO)....................... 58,513 (45,127) 13,386
Skelton (D-MO)....................... 130,804 (55,373) 75,431
Talent (R-MO)........................ 87,618 (78,445) 9,173
Volkmer (D-MO)....................... 131,029 (54,470) 76,559
Wheat (D-MO)......................... 133,071 (84,832) 48,239
MONTANA
Baucus (D-MT)........................ 129,869 (79,774) 50,095
Burns (R-MT)......................... 116,079 (118,112) (2,033)
Williams (D-MT)...................... 138,000 (69,030) 68,970
NEBRASKA
Exon (D-NE).......................... 130,612 (89,195) 41,417
Kerrey, R. (D-NE).................... 127,183 (95,574) 31,609
Barrett (R-NE)....................... 98,965 (64,067) 34,898
Bereuter (R-NE)...................... 94,106 (52,443) 41,663
Hoagland (D-NE)...................... 132,702 (87,191) 45,511
NEVADA
Bryan (D-NV)......................... 132,582 (44,342) 88,240
Reid (D-NV).......................... 132,610 (48,449) 84,161
Bilbray (D-NV)....................... 133,633 (55,667) 77,966
Vucanovich (R-NV).................... 109,877 (60,553) 49,324
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gregg (R-NH)......................... 103,600 (144,296) 40,696
Smith, R.C. (R-NH)................... 91,214 (136,976) 45,762
Swett (D-NH)......................... 131,083 (75,590) 55,493
Zeliff (R-NH)........................ 79,470 (67,294) 12,176
NEW JERSEY
Bradley (D-NJ)....................... 129,639 (59,336) 70,303
Lautenberg (D-NJ).................... 136,633 (74,425) 62,208
Andrews (D-NJ)....................... 118,812 (86,934) 31,878
Franks (R-NJ)........................ 83,517 (98,412) (14,895)
Gallo (R-NJ)......................... 102,380 (81,200) 21,180
Hughes (D-NJ)........................ 122,142 (64,546) 57,596
Klein (D-NJ)......................... 132,260 (68,715) 63,545
Menendez (D-NJ)...................... 133,872 (80,884) 52,988
Pallone (D-NJ)....................... 113,692 (59,576) 54,116
Payne (D-NJ)......................... 131,116 (85,294) 45,822
Roukema (R-NJ)....................... 98,215 (57,205) 41,010
Saxton (R-NJ)........................ 96,489 (91,386) 5,103
Smith (R-NJ)......................... 119,676 (86,449) 33,227
Torricelli (D-NJ).................... 133,861 (93,755) 40,106
Zimmer (R-NJ)........................ 72,441 (103,701) (31,260)
NEW MEXICO
Bingaman (D-NM)...................... 125,602 (56.267) 69,335
Domenici (R-NM)...................... 113,763 (113,076) 687
Richardson (R-NM).................... 132,345 (52,617) 79,728
Schiff (R-NM)........................ 96,741 (99,656) (2,945)
Skeen (R-NM)......................... 112,179 (75,564) 36,915
NEW YORK
D'Amato (R-NY)....................... 119,056 (121,381) (2,325)
Moynihan (D-NY)...................... 129,613 (54,602) 75,011
Ackerman (D-NY)...................... 131,936 (54,784) 77,172
Boehlert (R-NY)...................... 136,912 (45,270) 91,642
Engel (D-NY)......................... 135,678 (81,675) 54,003
Fish (R-NY).......................... 115,328 (87,667) 27,661
Flake (D-NY)......................... 134,476 (87,420) 47,056
Gilman (R-NY)........................ 110,441 (57,314) 53,127
Hinchey (D-NY)....................... 135,659 (81,733) 53,926
Hochbrueck (D-NY).................... 130,549 (64,845) 65,704
Houghton (R-NY)...................... 113,776 (85,066) 28,710
King (R-NY).......................... 94,194 (64,718) 29,476
LaFalce (D-NY)....................... 132,956 (70,487) 62,469
Lazio (R-NY)......................... 101,259 (68,809) 32,450
Levy (R-NY).......................... 97,636 (67,711) 29,925
Lowey (D-NY)......................... 136,236 (80,007) 56,229
Maloney (D-NY)....................... 133,715 (67,248) 65,967
Manton (D-NY)........................ 133,056 (47,900) 85,156
McHugh (R-NY)........................ 95,105 (70,325) 24,780
McNulty (D-NY)....................... 132,851 (62,223) 70,628
Molinari (R-NY)...................... 112,661 (73,230) 39,431
Nadler (D-NY)........................ 132,948 (67,379) 65,569
Owens (D-NY)......................... 121,084 (77,737) 43,347
Paxon (R-NY)......................... 58,374 (80,005) (21,631)
Quinn (R-NY)......................... 96,639 (86,354) 10,285
Rangel (D-NY)........................ 126,757 (79,759) 46,998
Schumer (D-NY)....................... 135,227 (80,604) 54,623
Serrano (D-NY)....................... 127,638 (87,924) 39,714
Slaughter (D-NY)..................... 136,055 (83,249) 52,806
Solomon (R-NY)....................... 67,851 (71,579) (3,728)
Towns (D-NY)......................... 131,897 (75,597) (56,300)
Velazquez (D-NY)..................... 127,188 (90,925) (36,263)
Walsh (R-NY)......................... 132,037 (83,063) (48,974)
NORTH CAROLINA
Faircloth (R-NC)..................... 103,531 (139,538) (36,007)
Helms (R-NC)......................... 91,567 (112,912) (21,345)
Ballenger (R-NC)..................... 74,183 (97,923) (23,740)
Clayton (D-NC)....................... 130,160 (59,698) 70,462
Coble (R-NC)......................... 79,221 (111,406) (32,185)
Hefner (D-NC)........................ 135,846 (80,675) 55,171
Lancaster (D-NC)..................... 141,669 (59,515) 82,154
McMillan (R-NC)...................... 100,292 (108,494) (8,202)
Neal (D-NC).......................... 116,769 (65,916) 50,853
Price (D-NC)......................... 133,572 (53,450) 80,122
Rose (D-NC).......................... 130,222 (50,862) 79,360
Taylor (R-NC)........................ 75,562 (76,931) (1,369)
[[Page H4201]]
VOTE TALLY STATE DELEGATION REPORT--Continued
[What Members of Congress voted for in the 103d Congress (figures in
millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Increases Cuts Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentine (D-NC)..................... 111,821 (95,042) 16,779
Watt (D-NC).......................... 131,786 (85,282) 46,504
NORTH DAKOTA
Conrad (D-ND)........................ 131,665 (70,587) 61,078
Dorgan (D-ND)........................ 132,900 (66,454) 66,446
Pomeroy (D-ND)....................... 133,784 (87,344) 46,440
OHIO
Glenn (D-OH)......................... 127,262 (46,343) 80,919
Metzenbaum (D-OH).................... 122,709 (71,661) 51,048
Applegate (D-OH)..................... 129,120 (68,370) 60,750
Boehner (R-OH)....................... 71,804 (66,717) 5,087
Brown (D-OH)......................... 136,089 (95,756) 40,333
Fingerhut (D-OH)..................... 113,373 (88,677) 24,696
Gillmor (R-OH)....................... 113,401 (60,947) 52,454
Hall (D-OH).......................... 135,102 (53,743) 81,359
Hobson (R-OH)........................ 107,143 (101,560) 5,583
Hoke (R-OH).......................... 74,439 (85,429) (10,990)
Kaptur (D-OH)........................ 135,191 (86,679) 48,512
Kasich (R-OH)........................ 93,919 (89,098) 4,821
Mann (D-OH).......................... 111,590 (62,197) 49,393
Oxley (R-OH)......................... 86,516 (79,548) 6,968
Portman (R-OH)....................... 70,694 (89,944) (19,250)
Pryce (R-OH)......................... 107,963 (99,910) 8,053
Regula (R-OH)........................ 115,493 (74,188) 41,305
Sawyer (D-OH)........................ 133,549 (52,280) 81,269
Stokes (D-OH)........................ 131,023 (59,011) 72,012
Strickland (D-OH).................... 136,034 (85,400) 50,634
Traficant (D-OH)..................... 132,239 (54,813) 77,426
OKLAHOMA
Boren (D-OK)......................... 126,528 (100,581) 25,947
Nickles (R-OK)....................... 108,958 (142,761) (33,803)
Brewster (D-OK)...................... 108,809 (59,262) 49,547
Inhofe (R-OK)........................ 64,351 (68,642) (4,291)
Istook (R-OK)........................ 70,383 (87,137) (16,754)
McCurdy (D-OR)....................... 129,821 (70,988) 58,883
Synar (D-OK)......................... 129,921 (59,423) 70,498
OREGON
Hatfield (R-OR)...................... 112,737 (86,919) 25,808
Packwood (R-OR)...................... 110,030 (121,330) (11,300)
DeFazio (D-OR)....................... 112,003 (81,768) 30,235
Furse (D-OR)......................... 134,727 (82,816) 51,911
Kopetski (D-OR)...................... 130,335 (77,141) 53,194
Smith (R-OR)......................... 76,561 (29,600) 46,961
Wyden (D-OR)......................... 126,217 (87,274) 38,943
PENNSYLVANIA
Specter (R-PA)....................... 124,538 (100,781) 23,757
Wofford (D-PA)....................... 132,613 (61,662) 70,951
Blackwell (D-PA)..................... 133,043 (70,656) 62,387
Borski (D-PA)........................ 135,626 (76,251) 59,375
Clinger (R-PA)....................... 104,552 (71,143) 33,409
Coyne (D-PA)......................... 136,205 (84,074) 52,131
Foglietta (D-PA)..................... 133,448 (73,070) 60,378
Gekas (R-PA)......................... 83,847 (88,304) (4,457)
Goodling (R-PA)...................... 98,168 (93,254) 4,914
Greenwood (R-PA)..................... 103,726 (107,694) (3,968)
Holden (D-PA)........................ 136,034 (92,293) 43,741
Kanjorski (D-PA)..................... 136,145 (83,549) 52,596
Klink (D-PA)......................... 136,088 (97,919) 38,169
Margolies-Mezv (D-PA)................ 117,351 (94,689) 22,662
McDade (R-PA)........................ 109,325 (78,081) 31,444
McHale (D-PA)........................ 135,817 (101,176) 34,641
Murphy (D-PA)........................ 117,285 (96,225) 21,060
Murtha (D-PA)........................ 140,515 (47,492) 93,053
Ridge (R-PA)......................... 108,188 (92,187) 16,001
Santorum (R-PA)...................... 91,135 (94,914) (3,779)
Shuster (R-PA)....................... 81,291 (84,389) (3,098)
Walker (R-PA)........................ 60,943 (69,783) (8,840)
Weldon (R-PA))....................... 91,001 (86,258) 4,743
RHODE ISLAND
Chafee (D-RI)........................ 122,158 (136,007) (13,849)
Pell (R-RI).......................... 121,372 (58,847) 62,525
Machtley (R-RI)...................... 117,118 (50,818) 66,300
Reed (D-RI).......................... 133,048 (54,455) 78,593
SOUTH CAROLINA
Hollings (D-SC)...................... 126,315 (62,298) 64,017
Thurmond (R-SC)...................... 117,863 (120,618) (2,755)
Clyburn (D-SC)....................... 133,732 (60,148) 73,584
Derrick (D-SC)....................... 129,552 (52,095) 77,457
Inglis (R-SC)........................ 72,616 (89,009) (16,393)
Ravenel (R-SC)....................... 116,390 (105,123) 11,267
Spence (R-SC)........................ 103,080 (40,981) 62,099
Spratt (D-SC)........................ 133,556 (53,868) 79,688
SOUTH DAKOTA
Daschle (D-SD)....................... 130,763 (46,354) 84,409
Pressler (R-SD)...................... 113,502 (119,079) (5,577)
Johnson (D-SD)....................... 134,057 (82,854) 51,203
TENNESSEE
Mathews (D-TN)....................... 129,125 (56,887) 72,238
Sasser (D-TN)........................ 132,719 (60,681) 72,038
Clement (D-TN)....................... 131,474 (43,068) 88,406
Cooper (D-TN)........................ 130,486 (83,481) 47,005
Duncan (R-TN)........................ 64,137 (86,559) (22,422)
Ford (D-TN).......................... 112,243 (55,410) 56,833
Gordon (D-TN)........................ 133,005 (74,449) 58,556
Lloyd (D-TN)......................... 128,944 (74,208) 54,736
Quillen (R-TN)....................... 92,083 (83,848) 8,235
Sundquist (R-TN)..................... 96,191 (91,745) 4,446
Tanner (D-TN)........................ 131,670 (85,516) 16,154
TEXAS
Gramm (R-TX)......................... 116,963 (117,343) (380)
Hutchison (R-TX)..................... 112,902 (84,690) 28,212
Andress (D-TX)....................... 124,106 (72,551) 51,555
Archer (R-TX)........................ 59,069 (43,841) 15,228
Armey (R-TX)......................... 66,063 (67,890) (1,827)
Barton (R-TX)........................ 63,541 (91,227) (27,868)
Bonilla (R-TX)....................... 95,946 (94,297) 1,649
Brooks (D-TX)........................ 133,173 (58,641) 74,532
Bryant (D-TX)........................ 133,135 (80,232) 52,903
Chapman (D-TX)....................... 139,177 (51,602) 87,575
Coleman (D-TX)....................... 134,930 (56,112) 78,818
Combest (R-TX)....................... 86,879 (39,267) 47,612
de la Garza (D-TX)................... 132,460 (51,281) 81,179
DeLay (R-TX)......................... 72,114 (73,433) (1,319)
Edwards (D-TX)....................... 129,825 (54,946) 74,880
Fields (R-TX)........................ 65,879 (65,861) 18
Frost (D-TX)......................... 133,070 (71,340) 61,730
Geren (D-TX)......................... 113,248 70,661 42,587
Gonzalez (D-TX)...................... 140,382 (49,191) 91,191
Green (D-TX)......................... 117,418 (79,844) 37,574
Hall (D-TX).......................... 103,817 (76,141) 27,706
Johnson, E. (D-TX)................... 135,851 (77,427) 58,424
Johnson, S. (R-TX)................... 64,697 (71,164) (6,467)
Laughlin (D-TX)...................... 129,656 (58,974) 70,682
Ortiz (D-TX)......................... 132,218 (47,340) 84,878
Pickle (D-TX)........................ 131,819 (71,968) 59,851
Sarpalius (D-TX)..................... 136,659 (67,164) 69,495
Smith (R-TX)......................... 94,953 (79,108) 15,845
Stenholm (D-TX)...................... 92,638 (92,702) (64)
Tejeda (D-TX)........................ 141,363 (47,773) 93,590
Washington (D-TX).................... 98,221 (67,452) 30,769
Wilson (D-TX)........................ 132,332 (73,141) 59,191
UTAH
Bennett (R-UT)....................... 118,656 (118,998) (342)
Hatch (R-UT)......................... 118,376 (119,990) (1,524)
Hansen (R-UT)........................ 78,105 (100,181) (22,076)
Orton (D-UT)......................... 98,477 (76,968) 21,509
Shepherd (D-UT)...................... 130,880 (71,552) 59,328
VERMONT
Jeffords (R-VT)...................... 127,492 (79,181) 48,311
Leahy (D-VT)......................... 134,144 (64,377) 69,767
Sanders (I-VT)....................... 128,991 (79,303) 49,688
VIRGINIA
Robb (D-VA).......................... 127,304 (84,096) 43,208
Warner (R-VA)........................ 104,160 (121,462) (17,002)
Bateman (R-VA)....................... 106,621 (73,802) 32,819
Bliley (R-VA)........................ 84,660 (88,240) (3,580)
Boucher (D-VA)....................... 134,942 (73,222) 61,720
Byrne (D-VA)......................... 131,385 (78,014) 53,371
Goodlatte (R-VA)..................... 74,768 (57,421) 17,347
Moran (D-VA)......................... 134,094 (54,248) 79,846
Payne (D-VA)......................... 126,508 (78,141) 48,367
Pickett (D-VA)....................... 110,525 (35,608) 74,917
Scott (D-VA)......................... 129,072 (62,932) 66,140
Sisisky (D-VA)....................... 117,136 (50,586) 66,550
Wolf (R-VA).......................... 94,060 (90,009) 4,051
WASHINGTON
Gorton (R-WA)........................ 119,839 (108,973) 10,866
Murray (D-WA)........................ 127,332 (48,003) 79,329
Cantwell (D-WA)...................... 133,291 (66,938) 66,353
Dicks (D-WA)......................... 133,328 (47,767) 85,561
Dunn (R-WA).......................... 82,033 (66,335) 15,698
Foley (D-WA)......................... 75,302 (35,590) 39,712
Inslee (D-WA)........................ 134,108 (106,326) 27,782
Kreidler (D-WA)...................... 135,965 (92,527) 43,438
McDermott (D-WA)..................... 134,667 (80,927) 53,740
Swift (D-WA)......................... 132,523 (48,140) 84,383
Unsoeld (D-WA)....................... 136,071 (85,252) 30,819
WEST VIRGINIA
Byrd (D-WV).......................... 128,325 (53,869) 74,456
Rockefeller (D-WV)................... 130,488 (46,657) 83,831
Mollohan (D-WV)...................... 127,593 (48,951) 78,642
Rahall (D-WV)........................ 130,704 (70,898) 59,806
Wise (D-WV).......................... 133,297 (47,577) 85,720
WISCONSIN
Feingold (D-WI)...................... 126,933 (81,812) 45,121
Kohl (D-WI).......................... 124,700 (103,945) 20,755
Barca (D-WI)......................... 98,012 (105,688) (7,676)
Barrett (D-WI)....................... 129,832 (92,871) 36,961
Gunderson (R-WI)..................... 97,717 (88,982) 8,735
Kleczka (D-WI)....................... 136,083 (80,769) 55,314
Klug (R-WI).......................... 88,482 (79,847) 8,635
Obey (D-WI).......................... 136,075 (82,955) 53,120
Petri (R-WI)......................... 65,995 (78,148) (12,153)
Roth (R-WI).......................... 63,570 (83,398) (19,828)
Sensenbrenner (R-WI)................. 56,113 (106,430) (50,317)
WYOMING
Simpson (R-WY)....................... 98,332 (130,480) (32,148)
Wallop (R-WY)........................ 96,189 (100,419) (4,230)
Thomas (R-WY)........................ 80,843 (94,142) (13,299)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are finally at the end of the contract.
For 100 days America's children, senior citizens, and working
families have watched the Republican Congress gut their school lunches,
home heating assistance, and student loans. And for what reason? To pay
for tax breaks for the very rich. To continue to allow billionaires to
renounce their American citizenship to avoid paying taxes.
The tax bill we are considering today illustrates very clearly the
winners and losers in the Republican contract.
This bill takes money from school lunches and hands it over to the
very rich in the form of tax breaks--from the mouths of babes to the
pockets of billionaires.
Some people are very happy with the Republican Congress. Some people
got what they wanted. They had their cake and they will eat it too.
Those people are special interest lobbyists, corporations, and
millionaires.
The losers were children who get meals at school, young people who
need summer jobs, and families whose homes are heated with the help of
the LIHEAP Program.
Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to see that Mr. Solomon's own committee,
which is stacked with nine Republicans to four Democrats, refused to
make in order any amendments.
Yesterday he called himself the fiercest deficit hawk up here. Still,
despite the demand of 102 Members of their own party, despite Mr.
Solomon's support, the Republican leadership refused to allow
amendments to slow down tax cuts in the face of exploding deficits.
They imposed a watered down, milquetoast amendment that doesn't even
qualify as a speed bump on the deficit highway.
I know if Mr. Solomon were calling the shots on the Rules Committee
he would have made stronger amendments in order. Once we're finished
with the contract I hope he gets his way.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can come
back with an open rule, instead of this gag rule, and help someone
other than the special interest lobbyists.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
[[Page H4202]]
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1................. Compliance............. H. Res. 6 Closed...................... None.
H. Res. 6.............. Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5................. Unfunded Mandates...... H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion adopted N/A.
over Democratic objection
in the Committee of the
Whole to limit debate on
section 4; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.J. Res. 2............ Balanced Budget........ H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43............. Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2................. Line Item Veto......... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665............... Victim Restitution Act H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666............... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667............... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Incarceration Act of on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668............... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728............... Local Government Law H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Enforcement Block on amendments; Pre-printing
Grants. gets preference.
H.R. 7................. National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Revitalization Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 729............... Death Penalty/Habeas... N/A Restrictive; brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr. time
cap on amendments.
S. 2................... Senate Compliance...... N/A Closed; Put on suspension None.
calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............... To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
the Health Insurance only the Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Self- waives all points of order;
Employed. Contains self-executing
provision.
H.R. 830............... The Paperwork Reduction H. Res. 91 Open........................ N/A.
Act.
H.R. 889............... Emergency Supplemental/ H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
Rescinding Certain only the Obey substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450............... Regulatory Moratorium.. H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 1022.............. Risk Assessment........ H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments.
H.R. 926............... Regulatory Flexibility. H. Res. 100 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 925............... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap 1D.
Protection Act. on amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print their
amendments in the Record
prior to the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and budget act
points of order as well as
points of order concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill against
the committee substitute
used as base text.
H.R. 1058.............. Securities Litigation H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap 1D.
Reform Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference; Makes in
order the Wyden amendment
and waives germaness
against it.
H.R. 988............... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap N/A.
Accountability Act of on amendments; Pre-printing
1995. gets preference.
H.R. 956............... Product Liability and H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in order 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. only 15 germane amendments
and denies 64 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 1158.............. Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed amendments
that include offsets within
the same chapter (deeper
cuts in programs already
cut); waives points of
order against three
amendments; waives cl 2 of
rule XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule
XVI against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) of rule XXI
against the amendments in
the Record; 10 hr time cap
on amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73........... Term Limits............ H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in order 1D; 3R
only 4 amendments
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure and
denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4................. Welfare Reform......... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in order 5D; 26R
only 31 perfecting
amendments and two
substitutes; Denies 130
germane amendments from
being considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure;
All points of order are
waived against the
amendments..
H.R. 1271.............. Family Privacy Act..... H. Res. 125 Open........................ N/A
H.R. 660............... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open........................ N/A
Persons Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**72% restrictive; 28% open. ****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 rules and
rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of
restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the
103rd 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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would love to respond to the gentleman
but time does not allow right now.
I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Sanibel,
FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon],
the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the generous time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote that is coming up, for
many reasons, just one of which is that passage of this rule is indeed
going to complete our perfect record of bringing the Contract With
America up for a vote just as we promised. We are keeping our promise.
This rule does allow the minority free rein to offer its alternative
tax plan, such as it may be, and this rule ensures that we match the
primary goal of cutting spending so we can balance the budget with the
important need to reduce taxation, to curtail Uncle Sam's persistent
depressing reach into Americans' pockets and wallets. The average tax
filer in my State of Florida will save $1,605 in taxes if this bill
becomes law. Other States will fare similarly well. We are delivering
the long overdue tax relief that is good for all America, for every
American. It will create jobs by providing investment incentives,
particularly for small businesses. And it will give much needed relief
to our seniors by eliminating the very unfair 1993 Clinton Social
Security tax and rolling back the unfair earnings test limit that saps
the energies and earnings of seniors who need to work or want to work.
H.R. 1215 is a down payment on comprehensive tax reform. The first
100 days, we have done a lot. The next 265 days, we can do the rest.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule, so we can get on with that job
and do what we were elected to do last November.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we should vote against the previous
question, we should vote against the rule and if it passes, we should
vote against this bill. It is the wrong time to be cutting taxes. We
ought to be cutting the deficit. It is the wrong time, it is the wrong
way to be cutting taxes, even if we should be cutting them. This is a
terrible gag rule. We are going to do nothing for 3 weeks after Friday.
Why can we not spend enough time talking about the impact of this bill
instead of gagging us with 1 hour to all the Democrats to talk about
the tax matter, a $700 billion mistake?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and
one of the most respected Members of this House.
Mr. ARCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, in September of last year, we promised in our Contract
With America that we would vote on tax relief for families and on
incentives to create new jobs. We also promised to pay for these tax
cuts by slowing down the growth of Federal spending, and today we
fulfill that pledge. But we do more. This package nets out with a $30
billion greater reduction in deficit than the President's budget
proposal.
{time} 1315
We have heard some Democrats say the taxpayers do not need or deserve
tax cuts right now, and I disagree. The American family is overworked
and it is overtaxed. So as promised, this bill provides a $500 per
child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, tax credits for adoption of
children and for the care of elderly family members.
It also provides tax incentives for long-term care insurance and for
tax-free distributions of life insurance for the terminally and
chronically ill.
This bill will repeal current laws that penalize seniors. It repeals
the punitive 5-percent tax on Social Security benefits imposed by
President Clinton in 1993, and it gives senior citizens greater
opportunity to continue to work without suffering the loss of their
benefits.
Americans do not save enough. High taxes are a big reason why. So we
include incentives for savings and investment. We create a new type of
individual retirement account, IRA, the American Dream Savings Account,
and
[[Page H4203]] we permit homemakers to build their own IRA's.
We provide much-needed capital gains relief to stimulate job-creating
investment. Capital gains for individuals will get a 50-percent
exclusion along with indexing for inflation. This will reduce the rate
for lower income Americans to only 7\1/2\ percent.
Corporations will be eligible for a 25-percent alternative capital
gains rate. And people who sell their homes at a loss will finally be
able to get a tax deduction for that loss.
Businesses will have incentives to invest in new plant and equipment.
The punitive and onerous job stifling alternative minimum tax will be
repealed and small businesses will be able to double the amount that
they can expense and deduct for the purchase of new equipment.
People who work out of their homes will be able to deduct more home
office expenses.
The tax burden on family retention of small businesses and farms will
be reduced, because the estate tax exclusion will be increased.
Democrats complain that these tax cuts are too big, they are not
fair, and they are not targeted, and they are simply wrong.
These tax cuts are not too big. The total cost of all of the cuts is
equal to 2 percent of what the Federal Government will spend over the
next 5 years. And this will force a further 2-percent shrinking in the
size of the Federal Government as we move to a balanced budget.
I think that is what the American people want to hear. These tax cuts
are fair. The biggest tax cuts go to families earning $30,000 to
$75,000. Over the next 5 years, higher income people, that is, the top
1 to 10 percent of the income categories, will actually pay a larger
share of Federal taxes than they pay under current law. These taxes go
to the right beneficiaries. Seventy-five percent go to families and 25
percent to create jobs.
Of the family benefits, 75 percent of the child credit goes to
families with incomes under $75,000 and 90 percent goes to families
with under $95,000 of annual income.
This rule is the only way that we can comply with our contract
pledge, which is to bring before the floor of this House a vote on
these provisions. A vote against the rule will be a vote against the
contract.
I urge a vote for the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
former chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once more we have a major
piece of legislation before us, and the Republican majority has
structured a rule to get around all kinds of serious Budget Act
problems.
The reason we have a Budget Act is to help us think through
legislation before we pass it. Yet this is the eighth time this year we
have been asked by the new majority to ignore the Budget Act.
The tax before us is a good example of the unwise legislation the
House has recently been passing. The measure actually makes the long-
term deficit worse since the cost of these tax cuts grow far more
quickly than the spending cuts.
By the year 2000, according to CBO, the deficit under the bill will
be $12 billion higher than it would be if we simply did nothing.
Further, it contains some serious provisions that were never passed or
considered by the appropriate committees. One of these provisions is a
dangerous new taxpayer debt buydown plan. This proposal lets taxpayers
designate a portion of their tax liability for debt reduction, thereby
taking decisions about Federal spending from the people's elected
representatives and handing them over to the wealthy. Essentially it
says that the fundamental nature of the Federal Government should be
changed from a representative democracy, one person one vote, to a
plutocracy, one dollar one vote, a million dollars a million votes.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any more invidious scheme for us to
include in a tax package. The plan has never been reviewed by the
Committee on the Budget. Rather, it was just dropped into the bill by
rule as a part of the Kasich substitute.
Mr. Speaker, may I also remind the House that the Speaker, now
Speaker, in August 1993 said that we, if we pass the President's
program, we would head into a recession.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are in. Employment is up, unemployment is
down, inflation is low, growth was at 4 percent in 1994 productivity is
improving, factories are operating at high rates, investment is
booming. Mr. Speaker, you were wrong 2 years ago. This is a bad bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 18 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 24\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this year we have the privilege of having a
very outstanding Member, a former judge from Ohio, serve on our
Committee on Rules, Ms. Deborah Pryce.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce].
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. By adopting this
resolution, we will enable the House to complete the contract's promise
to strengthen families and grow the national economy by delivering real
tax relief.
Today, the average family spends more on taxes than it spends on
food, clothing, and shelter combined. Many families now need a second
breadwinner just to support the costs of a bloated Federal Government,
not to cover the costs of raising a family.
After years of struggling to move a pro-family, pro-growth tax plan
through Congress, we have the opportunity today to tip the tax scales
back in favor of mothers, fathers, grandparents, and children.
It reduces the tax burden on families with children, and on two-
earner married couples. It creates valuable tax incentives to encourage
families to adopt children, and to care for elderly relatives. And, it
gives families more reason to save their hard-earned money for the
future.
In my own State of Ohio, taxes will be reduced by an average of more
than $1,400 per person. That's $1,400 more that families can spend as
they see fit, on the things they need most, and not as Washington would
spend it for them.
More importantly, this legislation is fiscally responsible. As we all
know, the best hope for tax fairness for America's families lies in our
commitment to reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced Federal
budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House will not have the
chance to debate the Ganske amendment, but, as the distinguished
chairman of the Rules Committee has pointed out, it has been customary
over the years to consider tax measures under more restrictive
procedures, and I will support this rule. It is a balanced and
responsible rule. By allowing the Gephardt substitute and the customary
motion to recommit, the rule provides the House with two clear
opportunities to offer alternative tax proposals.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, only long-term expansion of our national
economy, and the new jobs it will create, can make the American dream a
reality for future generations. That is why it is so important that
this Congress not miss this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a very productive 93 days so far in the
104th Congress. The majority has kept its promise to the American
people, and we have made rebuilding and strengthening America's
families a top legislative priority.
I urge our colleagues to adopt this rule so that we can usher in a
new era of growth, productivity, and financial security--for our
children and future generations of Americans.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
[Ms. NORTON addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
[[Page H4204]] (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule providing for
consideration of this bill, for a variety of reasons. As the ranking
member on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I want to
point out one particular problem with the rule. It includes a provision
that was never passed by any committee.
This is a provision which hikes the taxes of 2 million middle-class
Americans who work for the Federal Government in order to pay for tax
cuts for the wealthy. It imposes these new taxes on Federal employees
by making changes in the Federal retirement system; changes which were
rejected by the committee of jurisdiction--the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee.
This rule places before the House legislation which no committee has
ever considered. The retirement provisions in this bill were written by
the chairman of the Budget Committee. In what is clearly an
extraordinary departure from usual procedure, the Rules Committee has
chosen to take a course of action which negates the very existence of
authorizing committees. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. This
is not the same situation as might occur with a reconciliation bill,
where the Congress has previously voted for a budget resolution that
included reconciliation instructions.
In such a case, the Congress would vote to authorize the Budget
Committee to report the necessary legislation, if the authorizing
committee had failed to act, and the Congress had voted that budget
reductions in a particular area were justified.
This is not the case. This is bad business.
But there has been no such vote, and the Rules Committee is acting
without a mandate from the House.
Continuing with the unusual, the rule makes in order a tax increase
in a tax cut bill. The bill would increase the amount of payroll
withholding for the average Federal employee by an additional 2.5
percent of their income. This would take $750 more out of an employee's
pocket each and every year.
Last week, when I testified before the Rules Committee with a
bipartisan panel of Members who made these points, the committee's
chairman, Mr. Solomon, and one of its most distinguished majority
members, Mr. Quillen, agreed with us. Chairman Solomon said, ``This is
a case where we are raising taxes on some to pay for tax cuts for
others, and that to me is wrong. I don't believe we ought to be doing
this in this bill.''
When we asked that an amendment be made in order to strike this
provision, should it be included in the bill, Mr. Quillen asked to be
made a cosponsor of any such amendment. Clearly, from their comments
and those of other Members, Rules Committee members on both sides of
the aisle were deeply troubled by this proposal, yet the rule allows
for this proposal to be considered.
For those of my colleagues who are not concerned about imposing a
2.5-percent payroll tax on Federal employees, consider the precedent
this sets. I believe that if the Republican leadership can get away
with this, next they will try to raise the Social Security tax paid by
all other American workers. They promised no new taxes, and yet, with
this bill, they have broken that promise.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the rule. Reject this effort to bypass the jurisdiction of
authorizing committees. Oppose this effort by the Republican leadership
to impose a tax increase on middle-class Americans.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve our time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the House acted to reform
the welfare system. We also need to ensure that an even larger welfare
system--the more than $200 billion in corporate giveaways--is reformed.
Corporate taxpayers must live up to their responsibility as U.S.
residents and ensure that they do not dodge their duty to pay their
fair share of taxes and their obligation to help reduce the deficit.
I gave my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee the
opportunity to seek a fairer tax system by offering an amendment that
curbs tax benefits given exclusively to multinational corporations and
foreign investors. This amendment would have closed loopholes in the
code that drain billions from our Treasury every year.
Yet, the majority again refuses to stand up to corporate interests so
that we can reduce the deficit and put fairness in our tax system.
The Republican gravy train for the wealthy never seems to end.
Included in this bill is a repeal of the alternative minimum tax. This
tax ensures that profitable corporations do not avoid paying taxes in
the United States. Many advocates of a repeal say that instead of an
AMT, we need to look at individual parts of the code. But once again,
the majority leaves loopholes for multinationals virtually untouched.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
{time} 1330
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us contains a brutal breach
of contract with America's public servants. Markup of similar
legislation, as the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins], has said, was rejected on March 15 because a majority did not
support this provision.
The chairman of this committee who brings this bill to the floor said
that 2 million Americans were getting a tax increase so that the
wealthiest in America could get a tax decrease, because retirement
benefits are an integral part of the retirement package that we offer
to attract and retain top-quality Federal personnel. We should not make
hasty, ill-considered, and not supported by a majority of the committee
of jurisdiction decisions by the Committee on Rules, by the chairman's
own admission, not having jurisdiction over this matter.
The chairman said it is traditional not to have amendments to tax
bills. If this is a tax bill and if title IV is a tax bill, it should
take three-fifths of this body to increase the taxes on 2 million
Americans.
Proponents of this proposal have offered only one justification: We
need to pay for the tax cut. There has been some argument about an
unfunded liability, but the Congressional Research Service looked at
this issue, is the unfunded liability of CRS a problem? And their
answer was no, we have a system that is paid for. But everybody agrees
that the Federal Employment Retirement System [FERS] is fully paid for,
and it is included in this, a brutal breach of contract, my friends, in
this, your last item.
Reject this rule. Reject this brutal breach of contract. Reject this
ill-considered tax policy.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I am not here to argue about the value of letting the
American people keep as much of their money as we can. I support tax
cuts.
But the proposed bill gets the process wrong. I offered a
straightforward amendment that insured deficit reduction would be the
first priority while fulfilling the Contract With America. My amendment
would have made us get on track to balance before the tax cuts become
effective and would make continued tax cuts dependent upon us staying
on track.
The shame is that in making this rule, the majority opted to reject
the advice of the American people. I am entering into the Record four
quotes that show that a vote for this rule is a vote against the best
advice provided to the Congress.
I urge Members to support deficit reduction and returning money to
the people who earn it by opposing the rule until we get it right.
GOP leadership needs to listen to the public:
Opinion polls show public support for tax cuts is low and
falling. Even Frank Luntz, the pollster who testmarketed the
``Contract With America,'' says support has eroded in recent
months. ``The public currently believes that you cannot
balance the budget and get a tax cut,'' Mr. Luntz says.--The
Wall Street Journal, Monday, April 3, 1995
GOP leadership needs to listen to the experts:
Now, with all due respect to both parties, the American
people don't want a tax cut.
[[Page H4205]] Every poll indicates they want deficits
reduced.--Senator Warren Rudman, CNN Late Edition, Sunday,
April 2, 1995
GOP leadership needs to listen to its supporters:
``Our members, if you ask them straight up, come down hard
for deficit reduction'' ahead of lower taxes, says the head
of a national association that is part of the GOP lobbying
coalition.--The Wall Street Journal, Friday, March 31, 1995
GOP leadership needs to listen to its pollsters:
Nothing tells America more about your priorities than the
sequence of your actions. . . . That's why ``banking'' the
budget savings before cutting taxes is so important. It's
aligned with the national mood, which would choose ``ensuring
no debt for their children'' (72%) over ``getting a tax cut
this year'' (24%).--Memorandum from Frank Luntz, January 19,
1995
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I would point out that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]
appeared before our Committee on Rules. I have great respect for the
gentleman, as much as anybody in this body. But I made a note when he
said, ``I not only support a closed rule, I would support you sending
this bill back to the Ways and Means Committee and telling us to get it
right. That is our job. I support Chairman Archer on a closed rule.''
I would just say to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Browder], I really do have to resent his calling this a fig leaf. You
know, we really are trying to work together here.
Let me just quote some language in this legislation. It says, ``The
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, as agreed to,
provides that the budget of the United States will be in balance by
fiscal year 2002.'' That is part 1.
Part 2, ``The conference report, as agreed to, on the reconciliation
bill for that resolution achieves the aggregate amount of deficit
reduction to effectuate the reconciliation instructions required for
the years covered by that resolution necessary to so balance the
budget.'' That is why people like myself, who have proven that we are
deficit hawks year in and year out for the past 16 years, support this
rule. Every Member of this body should.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and if there ever was a deficit hawk that meets my
standards, it is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my Republican colleagues
particularly and to those Democrats who were considering casting a vote
for this, this is like the end of a horse race, maybe like the Kentucky
Derby, but that would not be appropriate; the last race in the Triple
Crown.
What we have done is we have kept our promises. We signed a Contract
With America back last fall, and we said that there were a variety of
things that we were going to do. We were going to downsize the
operations of this House. We were going to cut committees. We were
going to cut committee staff. We were going to cut committee funding.
We said we would pass the Shays Act which would say that all laws we
apply to the American people ought to be applied to ourselves. We said
we would pass the balanced budget amendment. We got it done. We said we
were going to pass the line-item veto. We got it done.
And you know what else we said? We said we were going to come to this
floor, that we were going to downsize the operation of the Federal
Government as we head into the 21st century. Let me tell you, ladies
and gentlemen, the American people are with us. The American people
resent the fact that more of their money and more of their power and
more control has been sent from where they live to this city.
What the Republicans are beginning to do is to listen to the
communications of the American people, and the will of the American
people is simple. What they want done is they want this Federal
Government downsized. They want it reduced in scope. They want it
reduced in power, and they want their money given back to them so they
can begin to solve problems where they live.
They believe that, as we move into the 21st century, we need a
smaller, more limited, more focused Federal Government, and they are
demanding that in the course of doing that, in the course of shrinking
this big Federal Government and giving them their money and power back,
they can solve problems where they live, and at the same time that we
are shifting power from Washington to local communities, we are also
going to save the country from financial collapse.
I just commend to you the testimony of Alan Greenspan before the
House Committee on the Budget when he said that if, in fact, we balance
the budget, the kind of prosperity that we would experience in this
country cannot even be estimated, that the power
and the ingenuity and the creativity of the American people and the
absolute wonderful dynamic process of our economy, our free enterprise,
entrepreneurial economy that rewards every individual for hard work,
will unleash a prosperity that we have not known in this country.
And what we are doing today by passing this rule and bringing this
bill up for consideration is we are keeping our word. First and
foremost, it is critical that the Republican Party keep its word to the
American people. It is the only way to restore credibility, and when we
come to the floor today, we are going to downsize this operation of the
Federal Government, and we are going to give families, the building
block of this Nation, it needs to be reinforced, in some cases it needs
to be rebuilt, the American family is going to get some of their money
back so that they can decide, individuals can decide, how to spend
money on their children, not leaving it up to bureaucrats to decide.
Second, we have a growth element. We say we want to increase the size
of the funnel so that we can pour more prosperity, have more job
creation in this country. We are going to help the senior citizens by
lifting the earnings limit. Let them work. Do not penalize them for
work if they want to work.
We are going to have an IRA program. We are going to say to the
people that if you want to save instead of punishing you in this
country, we are going to give you an incentive to save.
Let me just say that this is the final leg of the Republican Contract
With America. But it is the first downpayment on what we will follow up
with in May, and that is to take this provision that gives tax relief
and has growth in it, and we are going to marry it up in May with our
budget resolution.
You know what we will achieve? What we promised last fall. We are
going to balance the budget. We are going to save the future of this
country. We are going to give Americans tax relief in the process, and
we are going to shift power from this city back to where we live.
That is what the American people want. Those that fight against it
are resisting the will of the American people, and you know, the beauty
of what we do today, we not only give you tax relief, but we also have
more deficit reduction, $60 billion more in deficit reduction than the
entire President's budget.
And you know what, when it comes to deficit reduction and balancing
the budget, you ain't seen nothing yet. We will be back in May to
complete our job, to keep our word and save America and future
generations.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this is not a good tax-cut bill. In fact,
there are two tax shelters within it which will make all the other tax
shelters even enacted by this body pale by comparison, with regard to
the abuse that they will enable people to take advantage of.
But the worst part of this, of what we are to do today, is not even
the bill, it is the rule. We are going to consider legislation which
was rejected by the committee of jurisdiction, and under the guise of
tax fairness, and not breaking contracts, we are going to increase
taxes on each Federal employee by an average of $4,525, to provide a
tax cut of about $1,000 to the average American.
And talk about breaking contracts, when each Federal employee had to
decide how to provide for the retirement security of their wives and
children, we told them we would never break this retirement contract,
and today we are going to break it. We are going to require them to
lose retirement benefits,
[[Page H4206]] and to increase their retirement contribution by 313
percent.
This day will go down in infamy if we pass this bill, and
particularly if we do not reject this rule.
Mr. MOAKELY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm.].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a long and
exhausting 100 days to take up this final piece of the Contract With
America, which I have supported 70 to 80 percent thereof.
Unfortunately, though, what we have before us today is not a crown
jewel but, rather, fool's gold.
You know, it was about 2 years ago at this time that we were on the
floor trying to pass the rule for another high-profile, highly
controversial piece of deficit-reduction legislation. As seems to be my
destiny, my role leading up to that vote was to provide better
assurance of true deficit reduction. We wanted to try to start to get
some sort of handle on the entitlement spending which is increasingly
driving our deficits.
Let me tell you about the reaction I received for my efforts when we
reached the floor from this side of the aisle. I heard about
skepticism, cynicism, I was lectured about meaningless guarantees which
had no teeth. I was considered gullible for accepting promises of what
would happen tomorrow rather than demanding the deal be closed today.
Now we come to today's vote when I hear I do not need to worry about
deficit reduction in this bill. I am told the guarantee is already
there. I am assured that we can have the promised land, both massive
tax cuts and a balanced budge with borrowed money.
Well, the tax cut promises could not be any clearer. But just how
does today's deficit-reduction guarantee stack up against the agreement
I worked for 2 years ago, the guarantee which was deemed so inadequate,
so toothless, so meaningless? Well, we had proposed laying out
specific, numeric entitlement targets. If those targets were exceeded,
we would have required the House Committee on the Budget to report a
budget resolution which brought us back in line with spending cuts.
Now, does today's guarantee have such a requirement? No, it does not.
We said that if the budget resolution or budget conference report
breached the targets, the bills could not even be considered on the
House floor.
{time} 1345
No such prohibition in today's bill. We said, if the Congress decided
to increase those targets, in other words, they chose to spend more
money, a separate vote had to bring that provision into the political
sunshine. No such sunshine in today's bill.
As one who has been criticized for alleged weaknesses in spending
discipline proposals, which were 100 times stronger than the rule we
have today, would somebody please tell me why I should accept this
``trust me'' language before us today? I refuse to trust anything other
than an honest, enforceable guarantee that these tax cuts will not come
at the expense of my children and grandchildren. I refuse to adorn
myself with the jewels of political slogans and then hand to my
children and grandchildren those worthless minerals passed off as gold.
Tax cuts with borrowed money is no bargain. Vote ``no'' on this rule
and vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.
It does not comply with what the Contract With America said, that we
are going to have a open debate on tax issues. There is no opportunity
for us to offer an amendment. It breaks the promise that we would have
specific spending cuts before us before we would be asked to vote on a
tax cut.
What this bill attempts to do is to use a phony mechanism for saying
that we have to pass a budget reconciliation before the tax cuts become
effective. But after we do that, the tax cuts become permanent.
I hope my colleagues will read the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, because that is what we did in 1985 with
the Gramm-Rudman proposal. By the way, that bill required us to have a
balanced budget by fiscal year 1991.
The tax cut in this bill is permanent. The spending cuts are 1 year,
and they do not even give us anywhere near the amount of money. Let us
do deficit reduction first.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to the rule for H.R. 1327.
This rule does not permit a number of very important amendments which
are critical to improving this bill. It does not permit the Roberts-
Ganske amendment to direct the child tax credit to middle-income
families; it does not permit the Porter amendment to require that our
budget be balanced before tax cuts go into effect; and it does not
permit an amendment I offered with several of my colleagues to remove
the tax hike that this bill imposes upon Federal employees. A tax hike
in a so-called tax reduction bill.
Title IV of H.R. 1327 would require Federal employees to pay an
additional 2.5 percent toward their retirement system. An average
Government worker making $20,000 a year would have to pay an extra $500
per year, and the employee making $30,000 would have to pay an
additional $750. These are hefty sums for middle-class workers.
Whatever happened to our contract with the Federal work force?
Title IV also would change the retirement formula to reflect the
highest 5 years of salary as opposed to the present formula based on
the highest 3 years. This provision would affect postal workers as well
as civil service employees. Changing the retirement formula reduces the
lifetime retirement benefits by 4 percent.
The General Accounting Office, just this week, issued a statement in
support of the conclusions reached
by the Congressional Research Service [CRS] on the status of the civil
service retirement system. The report states that:
(1) the system's unfunded liability is not a problem that
needs to be fixed to avoid steep increases in outlays from
the Treasury or increases in the deficit and (2) the system
is not insolvent nor will it become insolvent in the future.
Mr. Speaker, Federal employees have borne the brunt of deficit
reduction for more than a decade. Why are we once again taxing an
already overburdened work force? Why have we tucked into this tax bill
provisions that were never approved by the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee?
I oppose the rule, and I ask my colleagues not to support a tax bill
that will harm the more than 2 million Federal workers and their
families nationwide.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican whip,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], one of the outstanding Members of
this body.
Mr. Speaker, boy, he has surely earned his medal in the last 100
days, I will tell you.
Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
I hope I do not take the 3 minutes, but I appreciate all work that
the chairman of the Committee on Rules has done on this issue. I know
it has been very, very hard for all the Members because this is a very
big and important bill. Everyone wants a piece of it, but not everyone
got what they wanted, and there are some ``push me, pull you'' going on
on the rule. I appreciate that. But you have got to also appreciate the
hugeness of this bill and what we are trying to do.
Mr. Speaker,
I rise in strong support of this rule, and in strong support of the
Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act.
Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear by voting in
the first Republican majority in the House in 40 years.
The message voters sent was simple: Cut our taxes and cut Federal
Government spending.
The new Republican majority has heard that message, and today we
start to deliver on our promise.
[[Page H4207]] The rule we have before us is a fair one. It gives the
Democrat minority a chance to offer an alternative while keeping the
integrity of the Republican majority package.
The rule also gives the American people a very clear choice.
You can vote for a Democrat package that contains no tax relief for
middle class Americans. Or you can vote for the Republican package that
finally begins the process of talking the tax burden of the American
people.
I am reminded of the vote we had in 1993, when President Clinton and
the leadership in the Congress voted in a tax increase that hit
seniors, hit the middle class, and slowed economic growth.
Two hundred forty billion dollars' worth of tax increases. All we are
doing is allowing people to keep $190 billion of those taxes for
themselves to spend the way they think it ought to be spent. Not one
Republican voted for that tax increase.
So today I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join
with us in righting the wrongs of 1993. Vote to stop taxing our
seniors, vote to allow middle-class families to keep more of their
money, and vote to create jobs for our workers.
We have been asked how do you balance the budget by cutting taxes?
Well, we have shown you that we honor our promises with passing the
Contract With America; we will also show you in May when you cut taxes,
as President Kennedy and President Reagan did, revenues go up and as we
cut spending and the size of this Government, the cost of government
goes down and the American people allowed to hold onto their money and
spend it the time way they think is important.
So I urge all my colleagues to vote for this rule, vote for job-
creating, deficit-cutting, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule before us. The
majority leadership is desperate to convince this House and the
American public that this is a bill for middle-income Americans. But
their very rule snuffs out an amendment offered by Democrats and
Republicans alike to ensure that it goes where it ought to. The bill,
the amendment I offered is a case in point. It would have established
tax fairness in the deductibility of health insurance. Presently
corporations can deduct 100 percent, self-employed individuals 30
percent, other individuals paying their own premium, nothing at all.
The bill I introduced would have allowed an 80-percent reduction in
premiums paid by individuals. This would have made coverage more
affordable for their families and would have installed tax fairness.
That is why my amendment was supported by the Farm Bureau, supported by
the Farmers Union, supported by the National Association of the Self-
employed. And we do not even get a vote. In fact, when the Committee on
Rules addressed this issue, at least one said, ``We don't want to open
up the Tax Code on this issue.'' Well, they opened up the Tax Code for
America's most wealthy; why will they not open up this bill for an
amendment to help working Americans?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, more than half of the tax cuts proposed by
the Republicans today for individuals will benefit families earning
over $100,000 a year, and more than a quarter of the tax cuts will go
to families earning over $200,000 a year.
The highest-earning 1 percent of families will get more in tax cuts
than the 60 percent of families at the lower end of the income scale.
This is the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We savagely cut programs
for the poor and the vulnerable, and we give huge tax breaks to the
rich and the powerful.
Mr. Speaker, this is bad legislation because it does not allow us to
debate the tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare that goes
to rich and large corporations. It does not allow us to debate the
propriety of millionaires saving huge amounts of money on mortgage
interest deductions. This is bad legislation, a bad rule; let us defeat
it.
Mr. Speaker, politics and much of what goes on here in Congress is
really not very complicated. Everybody here understands that the
majority of poor and working people don't vote and, for a variety of
reasons, don't have much confidence that what happens here is relevant
to their lives.
On the other hand, the wealthy and the powerful do vote, do
contribute very heavily to the political parties, do have well-paid
lobbyists and lawyers working full time for their interests. And that
in a nutshell is why the rich get richer, the middle class is
shrinking, and the poor are becoming poorer and are facing a terrible
onslaught from the leadership of this House.
Mr. Speaker, during the last several months some of the wealthiest
people in America and representatives of the largest corporations came
together to contribute $11 million in one night to the Republican
Party. Others came together for a $50,000-a-plate fund raising dinner
with Newt Gingrich to raise money for a rightwing television network.
Corporation like Amway and Golden Rule Financial have been contributing
hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican party coffers.
And today, Mr. Speaker, is payback time. After cutting back massively
on programs for low income people, on programs for children, on
programs for the elderly, for students, for the homeless, for people
with Aids, today is payback time for the rich and the powerful. Today,
they get the return on their campaign contributions to the Republican
party.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Treasury Department, more than half of
the tax cuts proposed by the Republicans for individuals will benefit
families earning over $100,000 a year, and more than one quarter of the
tax cuts will go to families earning over $200,000 a year. The highest
earning 1 percent of families will get more in tax cuts than the 60
percent of families at the lower of the income scale. For the very
highest income people, the top 1 percent, the Republican proposal
creates an average tax reduction of $20,362, for the lowest income 20
percent taxes are reduced by all of $36.00. The Robinhood proposal in
reverse. We cut savagely programs needed by the poor and vulnerable in
order to give tax breaks to the rich and the powerful.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill because it does not allow us to
provide rational alternatives to the tax breaks for the rich scheme
that is being presented today. It does not allow us to cut the tens and
tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare that the largest
corporations in America receive. It does not allow us to debate the
propriety of millionaires saving large sums of money in taxes from the
mortgage interest deduction on their palatial mansions. It does not
allow us to remove Federal subsidies for such Federal agencies as OPIA,
the Overseas Private Investment Association in which tax payers are
paying to see their own jobs go to third world countries.
Mr. Speaker, we need open and vigorous debate about how we can move
toward a balanced budget in a fair and progressive way--not on the
backs of the weak and the vulnerable. We need fair and open debates to
begin the process of eliminating the tax loopholes and the subsidies
which the wealthy in large corporations receive.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] an outstanding Member and the first Freshman
female Republican Member to serve on the Committee on Rules since the
First World War.
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, today we will have the chance to vote on a bill that
will help restore tax fairness to families and senior citizens.
For too long, American families and seniors have seen their tax
burden rise. Today, the average American family pays more in taxes than
it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined. Some senior citizens
now face a marginal tax rate of 85 percent--a rate much higher than
that of other Americans.
The problem is not that the Government taxes too little; the problem
is that it spends too much. The American people are simply overtaxed.
The Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act recognizes families for what
they are--the basic building block of American society. It will give
them the tax relief they so desperately need and deserve, and despite
allegations that this bill is for the wealthy, seventy-six percent of
the tax cuts go directly to families.
The $500 per child tax credit will help nearly one-quarter million
parents in my
State of Utah alone. Listening to the other side of the aisle you
would
[[Page H4208]] think that only wealthy people have children. But, 75
percent of the family tax credit goes to people with incomes of less
than $75,000.
Our bill recognizes the invaluable contribution homemakers make to
the family by allowing nonworking spouses a full $2,000 deductible IRA
contribution instead of the current $250, helping homemakers provide
for their retirement years and recognizing the value and worth of their
work at home.
Our bill also helps senior citizens. Under the Clinton tax bill our
seniors were unfairly singled out for higher taxes through an increase
on their Social Security. Our bill will repeal that tax increase and
restore tax fairness to elderly Americans. In addition, we will help
remove the penalty for seniors who choose to work in their sunset years
by raising the earnings test limit--rewarding rather than punishing
working seniors.
The tax money we collect is not ours, it belongs to the taxpayers. As
we cut Government spending and reduce the size of the Government and
balance the budget, we need to let people keep more of the money they
earn. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule, and this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas, [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is true the circus is in town, but not really the
roar of the lion that we hear today. The significant thing is a certain
mooing sound that is under way. You see, I do not believe we will ever
get the budget in balance without a true bipartisan effort. I thought
we were headed in that direction because I have a letter here that was
signed by 105 Republican Members who said that they recognized there
was a need for more money for deficit reduction and they could change
their tax proposal and apply it to only 85 percent of the families in
this country and provide an addition $12 billion to $14 billion in
deficit reduction.
{time} 1400
That represented a half step, and it is sure a lot better than the
lockstep we have seen most of this session of Congress. But somewhere
along the way that all changed. We are not going to have a chance to
vote on that proposal of 105 Republican Members because somewhere along
the way the Speaker said ``no,'' and I do not know what it is that is
so persuasive about him, but sometimes I get the feeling that, when
these Members are around him, they are so cowed, I can almost hear them
moo.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, in this tax bill, where are the tax
breaks designed to improve the lives of ordinary Americans? This bill
has provisions to allow Exxon to write off expenses on capital
improvements, but there are no breaks for students that try to improve
themselves through higher education. The greatest threats to our
Nation's economy are soaring deficits and the erosion of the middle
class. Today's tax cut legislation will not remedy any of these
problems. Instead it places the burden of future deficits squarely on
the backs of working Americans.
Economic indicators tell us that the economy is growing at a strong,
steady pace. Do we really need to stimulate it with massive tax cuts
for wealthy Americans and big business?
We should take advantage of a healthy economy and follow a prudent
course of deficit reduction that will solidify our financial base. Let
us send a message to Americans that Congress is making honest spending
cuts that pay off our debts. Tying spending cuts to budgetary gimmicks
further undermines the credibility of this institution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the rule and
the Republican tax cut for the wealthy that this rule allows, a
Republican tax cut plan where, according to the Citizens for Tax
Justice, more than 71 percent of total capital gains tax cut breaks
goes to those who make more than $200,000 a year.
The question is: Who is going to pay?
School lunches are getting cut. Elderly are getting tossed out of
senior high-rises because they are reducing the amount of subsidies for
the elderly to have affordable high-rises. In addition, they have not
let the students alone either. They are now going to tack on interest
payments for student loans starting the day the student enters the
university.
This is not progressive and far from being the middle-class tax cut
that the Republicans would have us believe because it is putting the
burden on the students, and who gets the break? The people who have the
most money.
It figures. It is the Republicans all over again.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], another outstanding freshman
Member who was helpful in writing in the language that is going to
bring us to a balanced budget.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, as we have kept our promises these first
100 days, we have made the democratic process work. This week it will
continue to work with the passage of this rule and this bill.
Mr. Speaker, as originally written I must confess that I was
concerned that the tax package in the Contract With America did not
place enough emphasis on deficit reduction. Mindful of that concern, a
group of us, including the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], and a host of others from both sides of the aisle, worked
with the Republican leadership and fashioned an agreement on the issue
that makes it entirely clear to the public that in passing tax relief
we will not abandon our pledge to bring the deficit down to zero.
According to the new provision, the tax cuts in the bill cannot go
into effect until a budget is passed, putting us on course to a
balanced budget in the year 2002, and each year thereafter Congress
will have to revisit our deficit reduction goals to make sure we stay
on track.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that with the addition of these
provisions to this original bill my concerns have been satisfied. A
good bill has been made better, and the process is working again. I
urge support of this rule and this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the former chairman of the Committee of Ways and
Means.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we, as Members of
Congress, should be deliberative and we should take our time in doing
the Nation's business. This is a very, very important piece of economic
legislation. It is a very, very important piece of social legislation.
The Senate, when it will look at it, will call this a $700 billion tax
cut. That is because they prefer to look at it in its longer term
rather than the very short term that we House Members look at it.
This is the wrong time in America's history to be cutting taxes. This
is a time in America's history to be cutting the deficit. Why? Because
America is at full employment today. Why? Because America is using its
maximum factory capacity utilization today. Factory capacity
utilization today in America is the highest it has been in 15\1/2\
years. The Federal Reserve knows it; that is the reason why they have
increased interest rates 7 times in the last 14 months. Every sensible
economist knows that this is the wrong time to be cutting taxes. They
tell us it is only time, the right time, to cut the fiscal deficit.
This bill, when it comes up, and it is going to come up, they have
twisted enough arms to get it up, is an inequitable piece of social
justice. Let us take the capital gains issue. It is a huge item in all
of this, and who gets it? Only 8 percent of all taxpayers ever take a
capital gains, 8 percent. But in this bill one-half of the capital
gains will be taken by the upper 1 percent of our income earners every
years, and they will take them every year, not just one time in a
lifetime like most Americans.
Let us tell the truth about the capital gains thing. Eight percent of
Americans ever take a capital gain. Of
[[Page H4209]] that 8 percent, more than half of it goes to those above
$200,000, and I say, ``If you look at those people again, they're not
just taking one or two capital gains in a lifetime. They take multiple
capital gains every year.'' And what do they do? They are just swapping
their equities around between each other. Somebody buys their bad
investment if they want to get rid of it. There is no creation of
additional capital. It is just a game there.
So it is bad economic justice, it is bad social justice.
Now let us take the family credit. When the Republicans first
introduced this bill, they gave a family credit, to low income
individuals, those below $50,000. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]
stood on the Capitol steps out there with the bill on September 27,
1994, and shook it into everybody's face, but this bill takes away 13
billion dollars worth of family tax credit from all those families
earning less than $50,000 a year. That is not fair, that is not just,
and that is not correct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Goodlatte). The time of the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has expired.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Florida want
another minute?
Mr. GIBBONS. Yes.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Florida. I just did not want to slow the gentleman down
when he got that steam going.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it, and I say, ``You know I
appreciate you, Mr. Solomon, but you gave me an hour to ration between
204 Democrats. I've been swamped for requests for time. They would like
to stay here and debate this.''
I see the Speaker standing in the back back there chatting with the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and I say, ``We welcome you
here, Mr. Speaker. We don't see you as much as we used to, but we're
glad to have you here today. Have you gotten off the elephant out there
in the circus. or are you coming in here to ride this elephant?''
Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. It is the wrong time to be
reducing taxes. We ought to be reducing the deficit now. We should not
be cutting taxes the way we are doing it. It is reckless, it is
irresponsible, it is bad policy for the American economy, it is bad
policy for the American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
and restrictive rule. I cannot believe that my colleagues in the
majority, who claimed that they would open up this House, could come to
us with a straight face and gag this Chamber with a rule that restricts
us to 5 hours of debate on a matter of such gravity for the Nation's
future--$630 billion to be exact.
While I dare say that H.R. 1215 is far from the crown jewel that it
has been touted to be by some, I will be the first to admit that the
bill makes several changes in the Tax Code that I think are long
overdue: easing the tax burden on senior citizens, providing tax
credits for expenses incurred when adopting a child or caring for an
elderly parent or grandparent in your home, and indexing capital gains.
I would like to support provisions such as these, but this rule doesn't
allow me to do that in a fiscally responsible manner. We are told to
take all or nothing, and if that is the case I will have no choice but
to vote no.
Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for a bill that will enable some of our
wealthiest corporations to avoid taxes altogether while giving just $90
in tax relief for a family with an income of $20,000, and then forces
massive cuts in programs that would have a devastating impact on
hardworking Americans. For the citizens I represent in New York, this
bill spells higher transit fares, devastating cuts in Medicare, reduced
student loans, hungrier school children, less affordable child care,
and fewer police on the beat.
One of the bill's more offensive provisions is the repeal of the
corporate alternative minimum tax, which was instituted in 1986 because
more than half of the Nation's most profitable corporations had been
able to utilize various loopholes in the Tax Code to pay no Federal
income taxes, even though they were reporting huge profits. The
inequity of this situation was so clear that the Reagan Administration
supported establishment of a corporate AMT.
Repeal of the corporate AMT would clearly represent an inequitable
shift in the tax burden. Seventy-four percent percent of the
corporations who pay the corporate minimum tax have assets greater than
$250 million. Given these facts, it is not surprising that its repeal
was not originally part of the Contract With America. Instead, it was
added in at the 11th hour, when the American people weren't looking and
special interest lobbyists were hard at work.
Let me remind my colleagues that under this rule we will not have the
opportunity to vote to restore the corporate AMT; to make the Social
Security tax repeal effective immediately, as it should be; to help
students pay for college; and to decide if the child tax credit should
be available to the families of 35 percent of our Nation's children who
need it most but who would not benefit from the credit as it is
currently written in this bill.
I urge a no vote on this rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], a very outstanding veteran member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this fair
and balanced modified closed rule.
Now, when the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] came before the
Committee on Rules, he requested a closed rule. We are not even going
as far as the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means would like, but we do have a modified closed rule. It is
a measure which is bringing to the floor an opportunity for us to do
what the American people have said overwhelmingly that they want. They
want us to try and reduce the size and scope of Government and allow
them to keep a little bit of what they have earned.
Now, as I have been listening to the rhetoric over the past few
minutes about us versus them, class warfare, I am very discouraged. I
have enjoyed working for years with the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons] on trade issues, but, when I hear him talking about the very
few who will utilize the capital gains tax reduction versus those
working individuals who do not or would not be able to, I cannot help
but think of a column that appeared recently in the New York Post where
Thomas Sowell said,
Class-warfare politics is not just fraudulent, it is a
cheap play on envy and a very serious disservice to the whole
country. Not only does it divide us yet another way, it
threatens the very process by which all of us have benefited
economically.
{time} 1415
This is a balanced approach. We want to recognize that we are in this
together. The American people want us to responsibly deal with deficit
reduction.
This bill is a very important step on the road toward a balanced
budget. Why? Because every shred of evidence is that with this capital
gains tax rate reduction, we are going to see an increase in the flow
of revenues to the Federal Treasury. That increase is going to help us
responsibly get to a balanced budget.
I urge support of this fair and balanced modified closed rule, and
urge my colleagues to join us.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] a former Governor of Delaware and
one of the outstanding Members of this body, who has participated in
writing the balanced budget legislation.
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for
consideration of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act
of 1995.
The American people deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money.
They recognize that the Federal Government is collecting an ever larger
share of their earnings and that the money it collects is often not
well spent. Americans do not mind paying their fair share of the costs
for our Nation's needs--protecting our national security, looking after
those who truly
[[Page H4210]] need help. But the programs and operations of the
Federal Government have become too big and far too inefficient.
Excessive Federal spending has resulted in a national debt of $4.8
trillion and deficits of almost $200 billion adding to that debt every
year.
Americans want relief from taxes, but what my constituents in
Delaware tell me is that reducing the deficit, balancing the budget,
and making the Government live within its means is what they want done
first, I am happy to say that we now have language in this bill that
will ensure that Congress acts to cut the deficit and balance the
budget before the tax cuts can become law.
The Rules Committee has added an amendment offered by Mr. Upton, Mr.
Martini, and myself which states that the tax provisions in this bill
cannot become law until Congress passes a budget resolution and
reconciliation legislation that will result in a balanced budget by the
year 2002. This provision reflects the will of our constituents: cut
taxes, but not at the expense of balancing the budget.
By including this important provision in the bill we are insuring
that Congress will have to face the difficult decisions to reduce
Government spending. If Congress cannot make those decisions, the tax
cuts will not go into effect. It is as simple as that.
The Castle-Upton-Martini amendment also adds two key requirements to
force Congress and the President to continue to work toward a balanced
budget.
After Congress passes the budget reconciliation legislation that
places us on course to a balanced budget, in each subsequent year the
budget committees and CBO must report on whether we are still on the
path to balance in 2002. If we fall off course, Congress must consider
ways to get back on course in that year's budget resolution. In short,
Congress must take action if the deficit begins to increase.
Equally as important, this provision will require the President to
join in this effort, by requiring him to submit a balanced budget each
year. This year, President Clinton has chosen again to propose a budget
that would result in annual deficits of $200 billion for the next 5
years. Under this amendment, if the President chooses not to officially
submit a balanced budget, he would have to offer an alternative plan
that shows how the budget could be balanced. It forces the President to
face the same decisions the Congress must face.
Mr. Speaker, I support tax relief for families, savings incentives
for individual Americans, and investment incentives for business. But,
I am adamant about the critical need to balance the budget. I support
the rule because it clearly links tax cuts to deficit reduction. My
colleagues and I will continue this effort on the budget resolution and
the budget reconciliation bill to ensure that we stay on course to a
balanced budget.
I want to thank Fred Upton and Bill Martini for their efforts on this
amendment. I also want to acknowledge Mr. Browder and Mr. Orton for
their leadership on the need for deficit reduction. Finally, I
appreciate the work of John Kasich and Jim Nussle, and the Republican
leadership for working with us to make this provision part of the bill.
I urge support of the rule and approval of the tax fairness and deficit
reduction bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule as a
noninclusive rule and hurting the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute to
H.R. 1215. The Democratic substitute benefits primarily low- and
middle-income Americans. Whereas, H.R. 1215 benefits primarily wealthy
Americans with incomes above $200,000.
The Democratic substitute sponsored by my colleague, Richard Gephardt
of Missouri, ensures that 100 percent of the benefits of the tax cut
will accrue to families with adjusted gross income of less than
$100,000. Moreover, it permits us to invest in human capital by
allowing middle-income families to deduct up to $10,000 in educational
expenses per year.
Furthermore, the Gephardt bill encourages Americans to emphasize
savings for their retirement years by expanding the number of taxpayers
who would be eligible to deduct contributions to individual retirement
accounts [IRA]. This is accomplished by raising the adjusted gross
income level requirement from $35,000 to $50,000 for single taxpayers
and $60,000 to $75,000 for couples who file joint tax returns.
The Gephardt bill also affirms our commitment to balancing the
Federal budget. This bill requires certification by the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] that the Federal budget will be balanced in
fiscal year 2002. H.R. 1215 fails to incorporate the requirement that
deficit reduction be a priority.
Frankly, the Democratic bill promotes fairness, maintains fiscal
responsibility, and strengthens American families. And finally it is a
good commonsense tax bill because it invests in our people--college
loans for students--part of America's future.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to urge Members to defeat the
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I intend to
offer an amendment to the rule which will allow Members to vote on
several amendments:
The Ganske amendment, which lowers the eligible income level for the
child tax credit;
The Kennelly amendment relating to taxable income for the blind;
The Browder amendment tying the tax cuts to deficit reduction;
The Wolf amendment which strikes the tax increase on Federal workers;
and
The Nadler-Lowey amendment which restores the pre-1993 lower tax rate
for middle-income seniors immediately rather than being phased in as
the bill does.
And many others as well.
This will be the only opportunity on this bill to have votes on these
issues affecting Federal workers, the blind, the middle class, deficit
reduction, and the elderly. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the U.S. Tax Code. It is the fear of every
American. If we had an open rule today we would open it up, and gosh
knows what would happen.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of complaining about the tax cuts in
this bill, but I wonder if the real opposition is to the fact on
something we have not heard about much here today. Is there $100
billion in real spending cuts in this bill? That is what Members are
going to be voting for.
You know, I said at the time when we opened this debate that a vote
on this rule is going to be a vote for a balanced budget. Let me tell
you, a vote against the rule is going to be a vote against a balanced
budget.
What the people are really afraid of is the language that appears in
this bill, and it says, ``. . . the budget of the United States will be
in balance by the fiscal year 2002.'' And the second part of it is
something they fear even more. It writes into law ``the aggregate
amount of deficit reduction to effectuate the reconciliation
instructions required for the years covered by that resolution
necessary to so balance the budget.''
That will become the law if you vote for this rule and the bill it
will bring up.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at this chart, you see that President
Clinton projected, when he gave us the budget a few months ago, another
$1 trillion, $996 billion, added to the debt. What is compassionate
about that, to load that kind of deficit on the American people and
their children and my grandchildren?
We can have a chance to do something about it right now. Vote for the
previous question.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule on the Tax
Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act, H.R. 1215.
The Contract With America states that ``within the first 100 days of
the 104th Congress, 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 and each to be immediately available this day for public
inspection and scrutiny.'' With a closed rule on the tax bill, the
Republicans have not provided, as they said they would, for a ``full
and open debate'' on this crucial legislation.
I would agree that many Americans need tax relief, and that we must
do all that we can to ensure fairness for our seniors and families.
That is why I offered two amendments to this legislation which would
have furthered these very important goals. But, unfortunately, ``full
and open debate'' on these amendments was denied, and the Members of
this House will not have the opportunity to vote on these amendments.
My colleague from New York, Nita Lowey, and I introduced an amendment
which would repeal immediately the increased tax on Social Security
benefits rather than repeal it over a 5-year period, as the Republican
bill does. While our amendment would have granted seniors
[[Page H4211]] immediate tax relief, and would have been paid for by
striking from the bill a repeal of the Corporate Alternative Minimum
Tax--making corporations pay their fair share of taxes--it was,
nonetheless, rejected by the Rules Committee. When we raised this issue
of equity regarding our Nation's seniors we were hushed.
While this bill does much to provide significant and immediate tax
relief for wealthy corporations, it delays tax relief and fairness for
our Nation's seniors. While the Republicans state that this bill will
provide fairness, this, to me, does not seem fair.
Repealing the Social Security tax increase immediately and paying for
it by requiring Republicans to retain the Corporate Alternative Minimum
Tax is only fair and equitable. The Alternative Minimum Tax was adopted
to stop the practice of large corporations using the talents of high-
priced tax lawyers to contrive ingenious loopholes that enable them to
escape all taxation. To provide these huge tax give-aways to
corporations and not provide immediate tax relief and fairness to our
Nation's senior would be the height of unfairness and hypocrisy. It
would be a moral outrage to allow or Nation's most profitable
corporations to cease paying income taxes immediately, while
requiring seniors to wait half a decade for tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, after restoring fairness to seniors by repealing the
Social Security tax increase immediately, our amendment would have left
approximately $7 billion for deficit reduction--almost half of the
amount of appropriations this House rescinded earlier this month for
this very purpose.
Our amendment would have significantly reduced the deficit, while
restoring tax fairness to our Nation's seniors, but the Republican
leadership would not allow this fiscally prudent amendment to be
considered on the House floor.
Our amendment would have done the right thing by making profitable
corporations pay their fair share and lifting this unjustified
increased tax burden off senior citizens immediately.
I asked, again with no success, that the Rules Committee consider
another one of my amendments. The amendment would simply index income
taxes to reflect regional differences in the cost of living. These
differences mean that an income which might make one well off in, say,
rural Arkansas, would barely afford a middle-class lifestyle in New
York or Dallas. Yet the current Tax Code, by taxing nominal, rather
than regionally adjusted, incomes, treats each of these taxpayers as if
their incomes were economically equivalent.
We know that this is not the case.
People living in high cost-of-living areas, like New York City,
should not be penalized by the tax system. By regionally adjusting
income tax brackets, we can make the tax burden on American families
more fair and equitable.
Furthermore, I find it ironic that this rule waives the requirement
for a three-fifths vote in order to increase taxes. The Republicans
passed a rule earlier this Congress which would require that in order
to increase taxes the House had to have a three-fifths vote. Now they
are waiving this rule for the purposes of passing their tax bill which
gives tax breaks to the wealthy. The hypocrisy here again is blatant.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is unfair and I urge my colleagues to oppose
this rule.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
rule.
Two years ago, the liberal Democrats voted for the largest tax in
history. Today, we right that wrong by allowing the American people to
keep more of their hard-earned money.
The Republican Tax Relief and Deficit Reduction Act accomplishes many
things for American families. One of the most symbolic and important is
the provision that corrects an inequity against the American homemaker.
Mr. Speaker, the current Tax Code treats American homemakers, who are
overwhelmingly women, as second class citizens.
In the eyes of the Federal Government, the work of the homemaker is
not as valuable as the work of her husband.
For tax purposes, a single-income family can set aside for retirement
roughly one-half what a dual-income family can. Our spousal IRA
proposal allows the work-at-home spouse to save $2,000 just like the
spouse.
This rule, and the Republican tax relief bill, acknowledge the value
and hard work of the millions of homemakers in America.
Support this rule, support homemakers, and support the families of
America.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
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 230,
nays 203, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 289]
YEAS--230
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
[[Page H4212]] Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--2
Reynolds
Stark
{time} 1437
Mr. DAVIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 204, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 290]
AYES--228
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--3
Pomeroy
Reynolds
Waters
{time} 1455
Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
personal explanation
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was not present for
rollcall vote No. 290, the rule to provide for the consideration of
H.R. 1215, the Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995. I was
unavoidably detained in a meeting with Office of Management and Budget
Director Alice Rivlin regarding Missouri River flood control. I spoke
on the floor of the House twice against the rule and, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________