[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6096-H6104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1854, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 169 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 169

       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 considerationation 
     of the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
     302(f) or 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI 
     are waived. No amendment shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
     report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against amendments printed in the report 
     are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during future consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to find passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], 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. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 169 is a structured 
rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1854, the legislative 
branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  The rule waives section 302(f), prohibiting consideration of 
legislation which exceeds a committee's allocation of new entitlement 
authority, and section 308(a) which requires a cost estimate in 
committee reports on new entitlement authority of the Budget Act 
against consideration of the bill.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  The rule also waives clause 2, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations of legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, and 
clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations, of rule XXI against provisions 
in the bill.
  In addition, the rule makes in order only the amendments printed in 
the report on the rule, to be offered only in the order printed, by the 
Member specified, and debatable for the time specified in the report. 
The amendments are considered as read and are not subject to amendment 
or a demand for a division of the question in the House or Committee of 
the Whole. Also, all points of order are waived against the amendments.
  House Resolution 169 permits the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment and to reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the 
first of a series of votes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, as in last year's legislative branch appropriations 
rule, House Resolution 169 is a fairly standard structured rule to 
allow for the consideration of H.R. 1854. Amendments were made in order 
that allow the full House to make changes in areas where there are true 
differences of opinion. Last year, a total of 43 amendments were 
submitted to the Rules Committee and 12 of those were made in order. 
This year, 33 amendments were filed at the Rules Committee, and House 
Resolution 169 makes 11 in order. Of this year's group of filed 
amendments, less than one-half, by the way, Mr. Speaker, of the 
amendments filed were submitted on time and several were repetitive. A 
full dozen of these amendments dealt with franked mail and the Rules 
Committee made three amendments that affect Members mailings in order. 
We also allow amendments that would restore functions that some Members 
want to retain. In addition, we allow the full House to vote on an 
amendment that would allow Members to return unspent portions of their 
office expense allotments to the Treasury to be used for deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege in being the only Member of 
Congress to currently serve on both of the Speaker-appointed 
committees, and in my role on the Committee on House Oversight, I am 
very proud of the reforms achieved in H.R. 1854 based on the 
recommendations by House Oversight. We had some tough choices to make, 
but getting our own House in order and tightening our own buckles is a 
necessary step if we are ever going to achieve a balanced Federal 
budget; which is, of course, our goal.
  H.R. 1854 incorporates House Oversight plans to revolutionize the 
internal workings of the House of Representatives, and over the next 
few months alone, save the taxpayers $7 million by streamlining 
operations. This bill is below the subcommittee's 602(B) allocation and 
is over 8 percent below last year's spending level. H.R. 1854 
eliminates, consolidates and reduces, paving the way for privatization 
of functions that will likely be less costly when performed in some 
instances by the private sector. Quite frankly, House Oversight and the 
legislative branch subcommittee did such a fine job that there really 
is not much room for improvement by way of further reductions on the 
floor.
  I would like at this time to commend the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, as well as 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Legislative, and of course the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, for 
their excellent work in bringing this bill forward. I believe, Mr. 
Speaker, that House Resolution 169 is a necessarily structured and yet 
fair rule, and I would urge its adoption.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Speaker, we reluctantly oppose this rule for the legislative 
branch appropriations bill.
  We are aware of the dilemma faced by the new majority in fashioning a 
rule for the consideration of this spending bill, which has for the 
past several years has proved especially contentious. We very much 
would like to be able to support this rule, but we do not oppose it 
because it makes in order only 11 of the 33 amendments that met the 
required pre-filing deadline. We do not oppose it because it waives 
points of order against provisions in the bill [[Page H 6097]] that 
violate House rules. We do not oppose this rule because it does not 
represent the ``free and open legislative process'' under which 
amendments are not blocked--the type of rule promised by the gentleman 
from New York--who is now the distinguished and able chairman of the 
Committee on Rules--when we debated the rule on this same spending 
measure last year.
   Mr. Speaker, we oppose this modified closed rule because it does not 
make in order amendments that deal with some of the most significant 
issues raised by the spending priorities in the bill. We oppose the 
rule because it denies Members the opportunity to vote on important 
reform and spending amendments.
  During committee consideration of the rule late yesterday, we sought 
to make in order those amendments; our attempts were defeated each time 
on a party-line vote.
  We argued that Members of the House should be allowed to vote on the 
deficit reduction lockbox amendment offered by Representatives Brewster 
and Harman. After all, the hallmark of the bill before us is that it 
cuts the spending of the legislative branch of Government; ends several 
of its functions and programs, and turns others over to the private 
sector.
  As a consequence, we felt it only fair that the House have the 
opportunity to debate what happens to those savings, and whether or not 
they can be directly applied to reducing the Federal deficit.
  Unfortunately, the majority on the committee voted once again to deny 
Representatives Brewster and Harman the opportunity to address this 
deficit reduction issue on the floor of the House.
  We also felt strongly that a responsible amendment dealing with 
funding for the Office of Technology Assessment should be in order. The 
OTA is a nonpartisan research organization that provides Congress with 
valuable and timely information about issues in the legislation we are 
considering. It has strong bipartisan support in the Congress. Many of 
us on both sides of the aisle are concerned that the Appropriations 
Committee has acted precipitously in eliminating funding for this 
important research arm of Congress.
  The rule makes in order one of the two amendments filed by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] which is written to retain a 
smaller version of the OTA. Unfortunately, the amendment made in order 
is not the one favored by the author; he testified before the Rules 
Committee that he preferred his amendment that retains for the OTA some 
of the autonomy it currently has, and which has been a large part of 
its success.
  The amendment required a waiver of the rule prohibiting legislative 
provisions in an appropriations bill. But, Mr. Speaker, since the rule 
itself provides a waiver of this point of order for other provisions in 
the bill and also waives all points of order against the amendments 
that are allowed, we felt it would have been equitable and certainly 
not unreasonable to protect the amendment Mr. Houghton had hoped would 
be made in order.
  The majority on the committee also refused to make in order several 
reform amendments, including one offered by the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] to abolish the Joint Committee on Taxation. 
The Schroeder amendment should have been made in order, especially 
since the new majority intends to end or weaken one of its major 
functions--reviewing the tax returns of individuals and corporations 
with refunds that exceed $1 million, a function that saved the 
taxpayers of this country $16 million last year alone.
  Our colleagues will also remember, of course, that we have, in the 
past, come to rely on the Joint Tax Committee as a voice of 
independence. But recent actions, including the 300-page report on the 
billionaire expatriates, have called its autonomous nature into 
question.
  This amendment, along with another offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], to eliminate funding now for the Joint Economic 
Committee, would have helped in our effort to streamline congressional 
operations, as well as save taxpayers money.
  We are also being denied the opportunity to bring a gift ban to a 
vote. The committee refused to make in order an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci], that would have prohibited the 
acceptance of gifts by Members, their staffs, and the officers of the 
House.
  As Members know, Mr. Speaker, we have been attempting to vote on a 
gift ban since the first day of this Congress, when the majority voted 
down a rules change that would have implemented a similar provision as 
a House rule.
  We believe that officially ending this practice of accepting gifts 
would go a long way toward restoring faith in Congress by removing the 
appearance of impropriety by Members. This amendment would have given 
us the chance to vote on this important issue, the resolution of which 
has been dragged out far too long.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule unfortunately also denies us the right to vote 
on another long-overdue congressional reform, a bipartisan amendment 
that would have ended the personal use of frequent flier miles by 
Members of Congress.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we believe the Members of this body 
deserve the chance to debate and vote on a handful of amendments that 
could, in fairness, have been made in order by this modified closed 
rule. They addressed important congressional reform issues and the 
continuation of the OTA with some semblance of autonomy; they should 
have been a part of today's debate, and should not have been denied 
consideration.
  This legislation is obviously essential if we want to continue to do 
well what we were sent here to do: Represent the people in our 
districts and legislate with their best interests and the interests of 
the Nation in mind at all times.
  Mr. Speaker, we regret that we are unable to support the rule for 
this very important legislation.
  We urge our colleagues to vote against the previous question so that 
we will be able to consider the important budget and reform amendments 
that were denied by the majority of the Committee on Rules and locked 
out of the amendment process.
  If the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment and the Baldacci gift ban 
amendment had been made in order, we would have had more spending cuts 
and more reform, and we shall ask our colleagues to give us the 
opportunity to make these important amendments part of the process 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will not consume very 
much time. Let me just say I rise in strong support of the rule. Like 
most of the rules on legislative branch appropriations bills adopted by 
the House in recent years, this is a structured rule. My colleague from 
Miami, FL, has so stated. He is a very valuable member of our Committee 
on Rules and also a very, very important member of the Committee on 
House Oversight. As he has stated, the rule provides for the 
consideration of a total of 11 amendments, or substitute amendments, 5 
of which are Republicans', 4 of which are Democrats', and 2 of which 
are bipartisan.

                              {time}  1040

  The rule will give the House an opportunity to work its will on most 
of the major issues relating to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard some criticism of this rule and of the bill 
before us, but let me tell Members how important this is. We have just 
enacted a budget in this Congress which is going to realize a balanced 
budget in 7 years. I would have preferred to have it be 5 years, but, 
nevertheless, 7 years guaranteed, I think, is certainly a step in the 
right direction.
  What does this legislative appropriation bill do? This sets the tone 
for exactly what we are going to be doing throughout the entire Federal 
Government when we restructure that government. We have reduced 
committees, we have reduced subcommittees, and, to drive a point home, 
that means 833 fewer employees, 833 fewer employees. If you look at my 
good friend Ron Packard's committee report on page 16, it talks about 
the savings that are arrived at from reducing 833 employees. That means 
less taxpayers' money that goes to the contribution to pension [[Page H 
6098]] benefits for employees and for Members of Congress, it means 
less taxpayers' money that is appropriated to pay the congressional 
employees' share of health care costs, and so it goes, on and on and 
on.
  Well, if that saves several million dollars, just think what is going 
to happen when we abolish the Department of Education, with 7,000 
employees; when we abolish the Department of Commerce with 36,000 
employees; and the Department of Energy with 18,000 employees. Think 
how fewer contributions there are going to be of taxpayer dollars going 
to benefits for those employees of the Federal work force. We are not 
reducing the amount for the Federal work force that pays for those 
benefits, but we are reducing the total amount of dollars. That is what 
we need to do.
  So for anyone who wants to vote against this rule or the legislative 
appropriations bill, they are making a big mistake, because this does 
set that tone. For the first time in years I am going to vote for a 
legislative appropriations bill, because it reduces the spending on 
this Congress and sets the right tone. I urge all Members to do the 
same thing.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because, 
among other reasons, the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Houghton], preserving OTA, was not put in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment to retain OTA. I have 
served on the OTA board for 4 years, and I feel strongly that this 
agency should be retained.
  I have three main points I want to make concerning OTA in my brief 
comments today. My first point is that the work of OTA is not simply a 
luxury to Congress, the work done by OTA cannot and will not be 
replicated by any other organization.
  Second, I want to point out that OTA exists as a result of growing 
awareness over the early part of the 20th century of the ever-
increasing need for sound scientific analysis in policymaking. Much 
careful thought went into creating OTA, and we should be equally 
careful as we consider what its future should be.
  Congress will not get a lot of symbolic mileage out of eliminating 
OTA. With all the inefficient organizations we have to cut in the 
Federal Government, eliminating a small agency that is considered a 
model of efficiency by experts across the political spectrum is not the 
way to score political points.
  During the joint hearing on congressional support agencies on 
February 2 of this year, a number of experts on congressional reform 
from across the political spectrum discussed OTA. Each witness praised 
the expertise of OTA reports, and several witnesses noted that OTA 
could serve as a model of efficiency and organization for other 
government entities.
  No one questioned the objectivity of OTA, nor were there serious 
concerns raised about the utility of their reports. The only argument 
made for eliminating OTA was that the organization was not essential to 
the Congress. The question then comes down to the necessity of having 
OTA continue its work for Congress.
  I think we all can agree that Congress is being called upon to 
legislate in a world which only becomes more technically complex, we 
clearly have a need for good technical analysis from an objective and 
professional organization.
  Some say we should go directly to the outside experts, and that 
objective and balanced advice should be obtained that way. This is 
based on the belief that professional standards in the technical fields 
are sufficient that Congress does not need an office to help sort out 
competing scientifically based claims.
  As a medical professional, I know enough about science to know that 
there is a lot of ground for differing interpretation and presentation 
of scientific facts. In my own field, I can make judgments about what 
constitutes solid evidence. But we are incapable of making those sorts 
of judgments outside of our own fields. I would have very little basis 
to judge good or bad scientific advice outside of my own area of 
medicine.
  In OTA, we keep on hand a small but highly trained group of experts 
in numerous technology related fields. They have no institutional or 
economic agenda to push. They exist to sort out competing arguments, to 
explain seemingly contradictory facts, and then present them to us so 
that we may make our policy decisions with these complicated scientific 
perspectives sorted out.
  Here is an example of why it would be difficult to rely directly on 
experts or the private sector to fill the functions of OTA.
  Many of us have been concerned over the past several years about the 
emergence of bacterial disease resistant to many of our antibiotics. 
What is unknown is how serious a problem this truly is, and how we 
should deal with it. Presumably we could go directly to the experts, 
the microbiologists and infectious disease specialists.
  But we might expect these professionals could have a conflict of 
interest, and might overstate the problem, in hopes of obtaining more 
funding for surveillance and basic research. OTA has no stake in this 
issue other than to serve the policymaking needs of the Congress.
  They can afford to be objective and ask the question, Is this truly a 
public health crisis, and what needs to be done about it? The OTA is 
just a few months away from having a report completed on this question, 
and it will almost certainly shed important light on a problem which is 
a significant cause for public concern.
  We must recognize that OTA exists as a result of a long history of 
recognition by Federal policymakers that policy requires data and 
analysis. The National Academy of Sciences argued for the creation of 
OTA, because they--among others--recognized that the pace of science 
demanded an expanded capacity for Congress to obtain balanced technical 
advice.
  The number of scientific and technology issues, the pace of change 
and the complexity of these issues will only increase in the next 
decade. It strikes me as precisely the wrong time for impulsive acts 
like the elimination of an entity that exists because of a long, 
carefully considered need for such assistance.
  OTA was not some luxury created based on some monetary whim. OTA 
exists because policymakers found a significant gap that was not filled 
by the existing experts, think tanks, academic centers, or other 
sources.
  The National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine and National 
Academy of Engineering continues to this day to strongly support the 
continuation of OTA.
  Furthermore, we should not expect that an entity like OTA can be 
quickly recreated. OTA has accumulated an experienced staff in an 
amazingly broad range of science and technology issues, and that have a 
considerable amount of institutional memory in addition to their 
technical expertise.
  A hasty decision to fire these professionals would undo many years of 
careful thought and painstaking hiring.
  The American people sent a lot of new people to Congress in November 
to act; but they did not send them here to act impulsively or with 
short-sightedness. I think that if we have learned anything it is that 
the public can usually tell the difference.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule, a rule that I think is very 
fair. It will give complete opportunity for us to debate every issue 
that I think is important to be debated. Frankly, I want to express my 
appreciation as chairman of the subcommittee to the Committee on Rules 
for providing us with this very fair and open opportunity for debate.
  In reference to OTA, I must make some comment. We will have a 
complete opportunity to debate OTA. There are two amendments made in 
order. One is to restore virtually all of OTA to where it is now, 85 
percent of it. Then a second amendment, offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Houghton]. We will have complete opportunity to debate 
OTA. Frankly, I [[Page H 6099]] think that the Committee on Rules was 
very fair in that area.
  I also want the Members of the House to know that we spent 
considerable time and effort in trying to craft a bill that would do 
some of the fundamental things that Congress and we think the voters 
have called upon the House to do, and that is to downsize Government, 
and to start with themselves.
  This bill does that. This sets the model. This sets the mold for all 
the rest of Government to follow in downsizing, in consolidating, in 
eliminating, and in cutting those areas that Government needs to cut, 
and we have started with the Congress and the related agencies that 
support the Congress in this bill.
  It is a very good bill. We have given considerable effort and 
bipartisan debate before we come to the floor of the House to it. This 
rule gives us a chance to debate those very issues that were debated 
and were still controversial in the committee and subcommittee. We do 
not believe there should be any need for additional amendments. In 
fact, we would have preferred less amendments. But the Committee on 
Rules, in their good judgment, balanced the amendments to both sides of 
the aisle, and we think that we will have an opportunity to debate the 
important issues.
  We like the rule, we appreciate the Committee on Rules, and I 
strongly urge the Members of the House to vote in support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today we take up the 2d of our 13 appropriations bills, 
this time the legislative branch appropriations bill. Sadly, the rule 
on this bill once again does not include the Brewster-Harman bipartisan 
lockbox amendment.
  Later today we will also resume consideration and vote on the 
military construction appropriations bill. The rule on that bill did 
not include the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment.
  Let me explain what is sad about this and why I will vote against the 
rule to this bill and the rule to future appropriations bills, so long 
as they do not include the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox 
amendment.
  The lockbox is a very simple concept. It is supported by or was 
supported by 418 Members of this House and I believe all members of the 
Committee on Rules when it was voted on earlier this spring. What it 
says is a cut is a cut. It is a mechanism whereby when we cut spending 
on an appropriations bill, as we did last Friday when we voted down a 
proposal for an Army museum that would cost $14 million,
 the money that is saved is scored in a lockbox. It could be called 
anything, but it is separately and identifiably set aside. That means 
that when the House bill passes, that lockbox money is identified. When 
the Senate bill passes, whatever is in the Senate lockbox is 
identified, and the conferees are required to come out with a figure 
somewhere between the House and Senate number. That final amount in 
savings must go to deficit reduction.

  These are not actual dollar bills that are in a box. This is less 
money that has to be borrowed, and it is money that comes off the 
602(b) allocation.
  I want to explain to my colleagues if we do not do this, we are 
deceiving the American people. We are saying that we are cutting 
spending, when we are not. Instead, we are giving a certain kind of 
power to the appropriators that the American people do not understand 
that they have. It is not the right thing to do in this House in my 
view, to cut spending and then to reallocate that spending without 
people knowing about it.
  So one more time, colleagues, deficit hawks, all of you, let me urge 
that we change this rule to make in order the Brewster-Harman lockbox 
amendment and that we make clear to the American people that we are not 
kidding, that the money saved comes off the bottom line, and that the 
deficit will go down because of the courageous actions we take in this 
body.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and dear 
friend, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for 
yielding me this time. I must say that it has been a pleasure to have 
him on the Committee on Rules and I am pleased to see him managing 
these legislative efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, in the time I have been in Congress, we have had much 
discussion about the need to look close to home as we work to bring 
balance to our Federal budget. Not only is there an actual real need to 
clamp down on unnecessary and lower priority spending--but there is 
also a very important symbolic need behind that effort. My mail 
strongly suggests the American people are willing to make some 
sacrifices in order to bring down our deficit and begin paying off our 
debt. But they want to be sure that the sacrifice is spread fairly, all 
the way around--and they sure want to know that their elected officials 
are leading the way, not hiding behind some royal velvet curtain in the 
castle or the Imperial Congress. I am very proud of the work done by 
our friends on the legislative branch subcommittee in bringing us H.R. 
1854, the bill that outlines our own budget up here on the Hill for the 
coming year. The subcommittee made some very real cuts--reflecting the 
action we took on the opening day in cutting our staff budgets by one-
third and in reducing the actual dollars we intend to spend next fiscal 
year by 8.2 percent from what we are spending this year. That is a real 
cut--not just slower growth or some budgetary hocus-pocus. Still, 
though the committee has done good work--there are Members who have 
ideas about further cuts and ways to change priorities in how the money 
is spent. Although appropriations bills are privileged and could come 
straight to the floor without a rule, this bill requires certain 
waivers as explained by my colleague from Florida. In addition, because 
we are under a tight time schedule to complete our work on all the 
appropriations bills, our Rules Committee chose to follow recent 
precedent and provide a structured rule, which was reported by our 
committee on a voice vote. This rule provides for consideration of 11 
amendments--including several proposals for additional cuts in Members' 
franking. I am a strong proponent of reducing the allowances Members 
get for free mail--having spent the past 6 years fully responding to my 
constituents' inquiries and staying in touch--while only using a 
fraction of my allocation. I am certain many other Members have had 
similar experience of underutilization of the over generous franking 
allowances. Likewise, we will consider an amendment to afford Members 
the opportunity to return unused office funds to the Treasury for 
deficit reduction--an important proposal designed to change the 
incentives from spending toward saving. All together--the bill and this 
rule--provide strong testimony to the fact that Members are starting to 
get it--the American people want us to lead by example and that is 
exactly what we are doing. This doesn't reduce Congress and its Members 
to sackcloth and ashes. It does responsibly tighten our belts another 
notch or two. I urge support for this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, at the moment we have no further requests 
for time, although such requests may yet appear. We reserve the balance 
of our time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman form Georgia [Mr. 
Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for 
House Resolution 169, the rule which provides for consideration of H.R. 
1854, appropriations for the legislative branch.
  In the past, Congress has proven that it absolutely cannot restrain 
itself from spending taxpayers' money. This bill is a significant move 
to curb Congress' spending on itself. H.R. 1854 cuts the congressional 
budget by $154 million in fiscal year 1996, eliminates 2,350 
congressional staff positions, and [[Page H 6100]] privatizes those 
operations that would be better provided in the open market.
  The bill crafted by the Appropriations Committee continues our 
commitment to shrink Government, beginning with ourselves. This rule 
assures that the Members of the House can vote on a number of 
amendments that would further cut the funds that Congress spends on 
itself, including funds spent on congressional allowances, 
congressional mail, and congressional staff. While only 12 percent of 
amendments offered by the minority party were permitted in the last 
Congress on this bill, the Rules Committee will allow almost one-third 
of minority amendments to be considered on the House floor today.
  Some amendments, such as a loosely written gift ban amendment, should 
not be in this bill. However, under the ill-advised amendment offered 
in the Rules Committee, if a group from the Fourth District of Georgia 
decided to hold a reception, I could be prohibited from joining the 
event because it was funded by interested constituents.
  A House bipartisan task force is working on effective gift ban 
language, and the Rules Committee acted responsibly in not permitting 
this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we will balance the budget so that our grandchildren 
will not have to pay for our extravagances. We are cutting our own 
budget first, and are working to assure that future generations will 
not have to pay for the excesses of Government. I urge support for this 
fair rule and the bill that will create a streamlined, responsible 
legislative branch.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal 
year 1996 legislative branch appropriations bill. By slashing Congress' 
own budget by $154 million, this bill shows that Congress is not just 
asking others to make do with less money, but we are starting with 
ourselves.
  The rule for this bill, though, allows us to go even further than the 
base bill. The rule makes in order a number of amendments that will cut 
even more funding, including an amendment to cut Members' office 
allowances by $9.3 million, another amendment to cut franking funds by 
$4.6 million. We allow an amendment that would further reduce the 
Government Printing Office and an amendment that allows Members to 
return the unspent portions of their office expenses to the Treasury 
for deficit reduction.
  I have pledged to cut my office expenses by 25 percent over last 
year's mark and we are doing it. And I would much rather see that money 
go to deficit reduction than back into Congress' own spending accounts.
  As we work to bring our own House in order, this rule gives us the 
opportunity to make additional spending cuts beyond the bill's nearly 9 
percent reduction.
  The American people have become increasingly disillusioned with 
Congress and for good reason. We have squandered their money for too 
long. All over this country families are tightening their belts and 
figuring out how to make do with less, but Congress has failed to do 
the same over and over again.
  This bill proves to American families that we, too, are willing to do 
our part to help tame the budget deficit by downsizing Congress and 
bringing spending under control.
  This bill takes an important step toward making sure that Congress 
learns how to do our work better for less money. I urge my colleagues 
to support both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding time to me. Let me say that talking about how this is a 
good rule is like trying to put lipstick on pigs. This is a bad rule. 
Let me tell you why.
  Some very essential amendments were denied. They were denied by the 
same group who promised open rules. The most essential, I think, is the 
one that would cut off gifts being able to be delivered to Members of 
Congress and their staff. I think this place should have had a gift ban 
from the day it started, and to think in 1995 we still do not have it 
is unbelievable. But we were denied the opportunity to come forward 
with a gift ban once and for all and say to the lobbyists, no, no, no, 
this place is not for sale.
  So that is one reason. No. 2, if you think we ought to be paying $6 
million to the staff on the Joint Committee on Taxation who just 
finished preparing a 300-page document defending billionaires in 
America and their right to give up their citizenship and move offshore 
to keep from paying taxes, then you will love this rule, because the 
amendment that would cancel that joint committee that has absolutely no 
legislation was also not allowed. Those guys are there defending the 
fat cats, and they are going to keep them there defending the fat cats. 
They are the first line of defense I guess for fat cats when it comes 
to taxes. I think they should be gone.
  It is very interesting that we cut the Select Committee on Children, 
the Select Committee on Hunger, the Select Committee on Aging; all of 
those are gone, but not the select committee that protects tax bennies, 
no, no, no.
  They do not have any more legislative jurisdiction than the other 
select committees. And on children, let me tell you, the Select 
Committee on Children Youth and Families, which was around here for 10 
years, their entire 10-year staff budget did not equal what one year is 
in this Joint Committee on Taxation. That was not allowed. So that 
amendment was not allowed, nor was the amendment to cut out the Joint 
Committee on Economics.
  Now, let me tell you, we either do away with all select committees; I 
think that is a very good point, if you are going to do all of them. 
But to selectively just target the ones that are people oriented begins 
to tell you what our priorities are.
  Maybe I would lose if I could offer my amendment. Maybe the gift ban 
would lose if we could offer that amendment. But let me tell you, 
anybody who votes for this rule is voting against our chance to even 
offer that amendment. The only thing we can do is stand down here and 
talk about it.
  What people will then say when they go home and are asked why they 
did not vote to clean up the Congress and get rid of gifts, they will 
say, because I could not. What they are not telling is that the reason 
they could not was because they voted a rule out that did not allow 
them to clean up the place.
  Let us hope people out there are sophisticated enough to ask the 
second question. If you cannot clean up a gift ban, who can, and why in 
the world would you vote for a rule that would deny the opportunity for 
this debate and deny the opportunity for these issues to come to the 
floor.
  If you vote for that rule, that is exactly what you are doing. So if 
you love gifts coming to your office, vote for this rule. If you or 
your staff wants more gifts from lobbyists, vote for this rule. If you 
think it is a great idea to spend $6 million a year for people to write 
defenses of billionaires being able to give up their citizenship and 
duck taxes, vote for this rule; you will love this rule. For me, I do 
not like this rule and I am voting ``no.''
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last speaker, I think 
it is very important that we clarify what exactly was attempted to be 
done through a gift ban in this legislation versus legislation that I 
have cosponsored along with other members of the bipartisan task force 
on reform that really will eliminate gifts from lobbyists coming to 
Members of this institution.
  The amendment that was offered, while I recognize the intent and the 
spirit with which it was offered, simply said that if we discovered 
that someone was accepting gifts, they could not get money out of the 
legislative appropriations bill. What we are trying to do in my gift 
ban bill is not say it is OK to take gifts as long as you do not get 
caught, it is to say that gifts should not be accepted by Members of 
this body.
  The amendment that the previous speaker referred to was a few 
sentences that did not define a gift, that did not [[Page H 
6101]] define a lobbyist, that left so many loopholes, it would be far 
too easy to ignore the plain intent of gift ban legislation.
  The bill that I offered, along with other Members, by contrast 
defines exactly what a gift is, includes trips, includes meals, and 
gives Members a framework in which to know exactly what things are not 
permitted. It defines it clearly so that Members cannot argue that they 
simply did not realize that a meal from someone constitutes a gift.
  So if Members are serious about outlawing gifts in this institution, 
which I hope they are, then it is too important to try to deal with for 
political purposes in some amendment that does not really truly address 
the problem. We need to address this problem in a way that makes it 
clear that we do not have loopholes, that we have an opportunity to 
really clean this practice up.
  In my office we do not take gifts. Things that are sent to us go to a 
homeless shelter in the area. It is very important to me that we deal 
with this gift ban, but we need to do it responsibly, not through 
something tacked on that really will not deal with the problem.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, that is always the great excuse, that 
this is not the perfect amendment. So my first question is, why did you 
not offer yours in lieu thereof, if you did not like this one? And 
second, if you did not like this one, why still not allow it to come to 
the floor and we at least debate it? You could amend it, whatever. I 
think that is very important.
  Third, why did you not allow the amendment to cut out the two select 
committees, one on taxation, one on the Joint Economic Committee? Those 
were also denied. That is 10 million dollars' worth of savings when you 
just add those two together.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, let me address the gift ban aspect. The 
reason that I did not offer my bill to legislative appropriations is 
because it is not appropriate to be legislating in an appropriations 
bill. I am sure the gentlewoman well knows that. This gift ban needs to 
be dealt with on its own merits. We need to have a discussion about 
this. The people of this country need to be able to see exactly what it 
is we are doing, and I have offered my bill and it is working its way 
through the process so that Members have an opportunity to know exactly 
what we are dealing with, that the people of this country can then have 
confidence that this is not some little thing that we added onto 
another bill that does not really mean anything, that has an 
enforcement mechanism, that has definitions that will allow people to 
really know that we are going to do away with gifts from lobbyists 
coming to Members of this institution.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield, let me say we passed a very strong bill last year. We tried to 
put it through as legislation, as rules of the House at the beginning 
of the session. There are many of us who have a discharge petition up 
there trying to get it out here in one form.
  As I say, we have been waiting for over 200 years in this Congress to 
get decent gift legislation. There is always a reason why not now, not 
right now. I think this is the perfect time. I thought the gentleman's 
amendment was excellent. I think it is a shame we would use the 
amendment to shut off the rule.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I will simply close by saying this: Gift 
ban legislation is too important to deal with it in a haphazard manner. 
We need to
 deal with it not as an add-on to a legislative appropriations bill, 
not as simply adding a sentence saying that if we find out you are 
taking gifts you will not get money from this fund.

  We need to deal with it in a responsible way that the bipartisan 
reform task force is attempting to do, by dealing with it in a way that 
makes it clear to members of the public and to Members of this body 
that we will not take gifts and trips and meals and all the various 
things that the people at home have come to feel are too influential in 
how a law gets made.
  I would urge those who are genuinely sincere in wanting to accomplish 
a gift ban to work with the bipartisan reform team and help us move our 
legislation forward that deals with this issue responsibly in a way 
that will make it clear to the public that the days of that influence 
into this body are over.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman form 
Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to Congress a 
little shy of 6 months ago, we were faced with this revolution that was 
going to be taking place this session. And that revolution was going to 
be reforming the way the Congress operates.
  We passed congressional accountability to make Congress accountable 
for the laws it passes and it passes on everybody else. We were told at 
that time that gift ban legislation would be taken up later on, and it 
could not be done when we tried to do it during that first day.
  Now we are being told again that it cannot be done now because it is 
not the right time and that we want an opportunity for people to 
understand what is all entailed here.
  I think that the people of my State and I think the people of this 
country understand very well what is taking place and why we do not 
have gift ban legislation.

                              {time}  1115

  They understand very well, whether we establish an enforcement 
mechanism, whether we establish a watchdog to watch over it, they know 
where the majority does no want this issue to be, in front of this 
Congress, because it is what the American people want and what they 
demand.
  Congress is paid a good salary. They have good benefits. There is no 
need to have somebody else picking up our check when we go out to eat. 
We get enough money to pay our own bills. We do not need people buying 
us tickets to go to a hockey game or to a baseball game, because we 
have the income and the ability to do it.
  We are supposed to be serving the people of this country. We are 
public servants for the people. I swore an oath to the people, and that 
is the contract that I have. I do not know what Members are afraid of 
in bringing this issue up. It may not be perfect, but it will not be 
the only thing that is not perfect that has been brought up this 
session
  Mr. Speaker, I implore Members to pass this legislation. We need the 
Four Horsemen to pass reforms: campaign finance reform, gift ban 
legislation, congressional accountability. Start putting trust back 
into the people, so the trust will be raised within the population, so 
they will have faith in all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to do this job. I voted for term limits. I 
voted for congressional accountability. I want to vote for campaign 
finance reform, and I want a gift ban, because it is important to get 
back the trust of the people in what we are doing on the issues before 
us. I implore the Members, I do not know what they are afraid of in 
addressing this issue now. I want to do it, I want to do it now, and I 
want the people to have their trust back in their public servants, 
because it is their institution, and we are here to serve them.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, this year we are embarking on a long and 
arduous journey to balance the budget. Our lingering deficit and 
staggering national debt make balancing the budget a critical 
necessity. We must take serious action now. We cannot afford to spend 
yet additional years and spend additional money before we make cuts 
that have already been identified.
  During this process we are going to have to make many painful 
decisions to cut programs that are beneficial. We will have to scale 
back the size of Government. We will have to cut waste, set priorities 
for dispersing the limited pool of Federal dollars. In this spirit of 
eliminating waste and reducing the deficit, I had hoped to offer an 
amendment to the fiscal year 1996 legislative appropriations bill that 
would have eliminated funding for the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Joint Economic Committee has been 
identified as an appendage of this institution that is not needed. It 
is slated [[Page H 6102]] for elimination in fiscal year 1997. Why 
should we wait for another year? By eliminating the Joint Economic 
Committee this year, we could save the taxpayers $3 million.
  Mr. Speaker, we can no longer afford the luxury of funding redundant, 
duplicative Government entities such as the Joint Economic Committee. 
We already have budget committees, tax committees, in both the House 
and Senate. Earlier this year the committees in the House were 
reorganized, and the total number was reduced to eliminate overlap and 
duplications. Now, during the budget process, we should continue this 
effort and eliminate wasteful joint House and Senate committees.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the Members for their efforts to pare down the 
size of the legislative branch and improve efficiency. Let us take 
another relatively easy step toward balancing the budget by eliminating 
the Joint Economic Committee now. I urge my colleagues to support this 
effort and save the taxpayers $3 million. I ask, why could this rule 
not have allowed for that step to be taken this week?
  Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, certainly, as the last speaker very 
articulately pointed out, the American people want us in Congress to 
act on the budget, and act with fairness to balance the budget and make 
some tough spending cuts. One of the ways we can achieve that is to 
lead ourselves, to return money out of our congressional accounts back 
to the U.S. Treasury Department.
  Over the least 4 years, I have returned over $670,000. Many Members 
of Congress have done much better than that. What we should be able to 
do is have that money designated for deficit reduction and not go back 
into a fund that pays for other Members' mail, office accounts, 
salaries, whatever be the case.
  A bill that I introduced on the first day of Congress this session, 
last session, the session before, H.R. 26, would achieve this purpose. 
It simply says, ``Any excess funds in an account will go directly to 
the U.S. Treasury, and not back to the U.S. Government to be respent.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is fair. It is accountable. It shows some 
leadership on the part of the Congress to address the deficit. This is
 bipartisan legislation; 121 Members of Congress have joined with me, 
Democrats and Republicans joining together to do something about the 
budget deficit, including the acting Speaker, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton]. I will be joining tomorrow with the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] to offer an amendment to have excess 
moneys go directly to the deficit.

  I am hopeful that we can pass this legislation to account for truth 
in budgeting, so we do not appropriate less money than we actually 
need, and count on Members to return money, and second, to show the 
American people that Members of Congress are going to be fiscally 
disciplined and make some of the tough decisions in their own office to 
return funds.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we regret we are unable to support the 
rule for this very important piece of legislation. We do urge our 
colleagues to vote against the previous question, so we will be able to 
consider the important budget and reform amendments that were denied by 
the majority of the Committee on Rules, and kept out of the amendment 
process.
  If the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment and the Baldacci gift ban 
amendment had been made in order, we would have had more spending cuts 
and more reform, and we shall ask our colleagues to give us the 
opportunity to make these important amendments part of the process 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information regarding the floor 
procedure in the 104th Congress:

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       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 germaneness                     
                                                                     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.                                                                          
H.R. 1215*.............  The Contract With        H. Res. 129       Restrictive; Self Executes                1D
                          America Tax Relief Act                     language that makes tax                    
                          of 1995.                                   cuts contingent on the                     
                                                                     adoption of a balanced                     
                                                                     budget plan and strikes                    
                                                                     section 3006. Makes in                     
                                                                     order only one substitute.                 
                                                                     Waives all points of order                 
                                                                     against the bill,                          
                                                                     substitute made in order as                
                                                                     original text and Gephardt                 
                                                                     substitute..                               
H.R. 483...............  Medicare Select          H. Res. 130       Restrictive; waives cl                    1D
                          Extension.                                 2(1)(6) of rule XI against                 
                                                                     the bill; makes H.R. 1391                  
                                                                     in order as original text;                 
                                                                     makes in order only the                    
                                                                     Dingell substitute; allows                 
                                                                     Commerce Committee to file                 
                                                                     a report on the bill at any                
                                                                     time.                                      
H.R. 655...............  Hydrogen Future Act....  H. Res 136        Open........................            N/A.
[[Page H 6103]]
                                                                                                                
H.R. 1361..............  Coast Guard              H. Res 139        Open; waives sections 302(f)            N/A.
                          Authorization.                             and 308(a) of the                          
                                                                     Congressional Budget Act                   
                                                                     against the bill's                         
                                                                     consideration and the                      
                                                                     committee substitute;                      
                                                                     waives c1 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the committee                      
                                                                     substitute.                                
H.R. 961...............  Clean Water Act........  H. Res 140        Open; pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference; waives sections                
                                                                     302(f) and 602(b) of the                   
                                                                     Budget Act against the                     
                                                                     bill's consideration;                      
                                                                     waives c1 7 of rule XVI, c1                
                                                                     5(a) of rule XXI and                       
                                                                     section 302(f) of the                      
                                                                     Budget Act against the                     
                                                                     committee substitute. Makes                
                                                                     in order Shuster substitute                
                                                                     as first order of business.                
H.R. 535...............  Corning National Fish    H. Res. 144       Open........................            N/A.
                          Hatchery Conveyance                                                                   
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 584...............  Conveyance of the        H. Res. 145       Open........................            N/A.
                          Fairport National Fish                                                                
                          Hatchery of the State                                                                 
                          of Iowa.                                                                              
H.R. 614...............  Conveyance of the New    H. Res. 146       Open........................            N/A.
                          London National Fish                                                                  
                          Hatchery Production                                                                   
                          Facility.                                                                             
H. Con. Res. 67........  Budget Resolution......  H. Res. 149       Restrictive; Makes in order            3D;1R
                                                                     4 substitutes under regular                
                                                                     order; Gephardt, Neumann/                  
                                                                     Solomon, Payne/Owens,                      
                                                                     President's Budget if                      
                                                                     printed in Record on 5/17/                 
                                                                     95; waives all points of                   
                                                                     order against substitutes                  
                                                                     and concurrent resolution;                 
                                                                     suspends application of                    
                                                                     Rule XLIX with respect to                  
                                                                     the resolution; self-                      
                                                                     executes Agriculture                       
                                                                     language.                                  
H.R. 1561..............  American Overseas        H. Res. 155       Restrictive; Requires                    N/A
                          Interests Act of 1995.                     amendments to be printed in                
                                                                     the Record prior to their                  
                                                                     consideration; 10 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap; waives cl 2(1)(6) of                  
                                                                     rule XI against the bill's                 
                                                                     consideration; Also waives                 
                                                                     sections 302(f), 303(a),                   
                                                                     308(a) and 402(a) against                  
                                                                     the bill's consideration                   
                                                                     and the committee amendment                
                                                                     in order as original text;                 
                                                                     waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendment;                     
                                                                     amendment consideration is                 
                                                                     closed at 2:30 p.m. on May                 
                                                                     25, 1995. Self-executes                    
                                                                     provision which removes                    
                                                                     section 2210 from the bill.                
                                                                     This was done at the                       
                                                                     request of the Budget                      
                                                                     Committee.                                 
H.R. 1530..............  National Defense         H. Res. 164       Restrictive; Makes in order      36R; 18D; 2
                          Authorization Act FY                       only the amendments printed      Bipartisan
                          1996.                                      in the report; waives all                  
                                                                     points of order against the                
                                                                     bill, substitute and                       
                                                                     amendments printed in the                  
                                                                     report. Gives the Chairman                 
                                                                     en bloc authority. Self-                   
                                                                     executes a provision which                 
                                                                     strikes section 807 of the                 
                                                                     bill; provides for an                      
                                                                     additional 30 min. of                      
                                                                     debate on Nunn-Lugar                       
                                                                     section; Allows Mr. Clinger                
                                                                     to offer a modification of                 
                                                                     his amendment with the                     
                                                                     concurrence of Ms. Collins.                
H.R. 1817..............  Military Construction    H. Res. 167       Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6  ..............
                          Appropriations; FY                         of rule XXI against the                    
                          1996.                                      bill; 1 hr. general debate;                
                                                                     Uses House passed budget                   
                                                                     numbers as threshold for                   
                                                                     spending amounts pending                   
                                                                     passage of Budget.                         
H.R. 1854..............  Legislative Branch       H. Res. 169       Restrictive; Makes in order        5R; 4D; 2
                          Appropriations.                            only 11 amendments; waives      Bipartisan 
                                                                     sections 302(f) and 308(a)                 
                                                                     of the Budget Act against                  
                                                                     the bill and cl. 2 and cl.                 
                                                                     6 of rule XXI against the                  
                                                                     bill. All points of order                  
                                                                     are waived against the                     
                                                                     amendments.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 65% restrictive; 35% 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] bring up that very important subject which we have permitted to 
be addressed by virtue of making in order an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] that will allow Members to 
return unspent portions of their office expense accounts to the 
Treasury to be used specifically for deficit reduction.
  This is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker. It has been a rule that has been 
well thought through. There has been very close work and cooperation 
between the Legislative Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the Committee on House Oversight, and the Committee on 
Rules. I think it is a good piece of work that we have brought before 
the floor today, before our colleagues today, and I would urge that our 
colleagues adopt this rule and move this bill onto the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a table reflecting the 
amendment process under special rules reported by the Committee on 
Rules.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 19, 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                 29                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 11                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals........................                104                100                 40                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 June 19, 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/  
                                                                                              95).              
  ..................    ..................  H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....                     
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 (2/13/
                                                                   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).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
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 (3/7/95)  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. 1159...........  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)               
[[Page H 6104]]
                                                                                                                
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  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nattional Defense Auth.    PQ: 233-183 (6/13/ 
                                                                   FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1617...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    ...................
 95).                                                              1996.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.                           

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). 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. BEILENSON. 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. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed until completion of action 
on House Resolution 168.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I was 
objecting to a vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes that.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________