[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7083-H7092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2020, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND 
              GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                              H. Res. 190

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2020) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain independent agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered by title rather than by paragraph. Each 
     title 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 except as follows: beginning with 
     ``Provided further'' on page 33, line 2, through 
     ``Maryland:'' on line 13; and page 42, line 9, through page 
     43, line 6. Where points of order are waived against part of 
     a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another 
     part of such paragraph may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. For purposes of debate only, Mr. Speaker, 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 
purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 190 is an open rule, 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2020, the Treasury, Postal 
Service, and general government appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996. H.R. 2020 provides funds for the Treasury Department, the United 
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and 
certainly independent agencies.
  The rule waives clause 2, prohibiting unauthorized and legislative 
provisions, and clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations, of rule XXI 
against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the 
rule.
  The rule also provides for the reading of the bill by title, rather 
than by section, for amendment, and each title is considered as read. 
In addition, the Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition 
to members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  I would like to stress that this rule is an open rule, so open that 
it does not even restrict dilatory tactics. We are hopeful that Members 
will not utilize stalling techniques that do not advance debate nor 
improve the substance of legislation.
  This rule does not provide waivers of the rules for any amendments to 
H.R. 2020. It is a standard open rule, and Members who want to move 
funds around or reduce funding for certain programs will be able to do 
so within the parameters of House rules. Any battles regarding the 
level of funding for particular programs or projects can be decided on 
the floor in a deliberative manner.
  I would like to commend Subcommittee Chairman Lightfoot and Chairman 
Livingston for their hard work on this bill. As an open rule on this 
$23 billion measure, House Resolution 190 could not be more fair, and I 
urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, I include the following 
information regarding amendments:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 17, 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                 35                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 12                 25
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  1                  2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 48                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).                                                                             


                                                                                                                

[[Page H 7084]]
                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 17, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   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. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
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)               
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...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  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    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    ...................
 95).                                                              1996.                                        
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  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 are not opposed to the rule for H.R. 2020, the bill 
making appropriations for the Treasury Department and Postal Service, 
Executive Office of the President, and several independent agencies for 
the fiscal year beginning October 1.
  This is an open rule. It is not, however, the ``open-plus rule'' that 
the other side of the aisle requested just a year ago for this same 
appropriations bill. The rule waives several House rules that are 
violated by provisions of the bill, including the rule prohibiting 
unauthorized and legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, and 
the bill prohibiting reappropriations. Those same waivers were strongly 
criticized last year by our friends across the aisle, but as we have 
noted before in recent days, this is a new day, and the new leadership 
has now discovered the importance of those waivers of standing House 
rules in order to move legislation that is essential to the Federal 
Government's day-to-day operations.
  We do not oppose the waivers provided by the rule. We are, however, 
concerned that the majority would not permit the same waivers for 
several key amendments that Members sought to offer. We attempted to 
make several amendments in order last night when the Committee on Rules 
considered this resolution. Of particular importance to many of us was 
an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
which would have opened the Federal employees' health benefit plan to 
all Americans. The gentlewoman argued, we thought quite convincingly, 
that since the bill itself opens up the Federal Government's health 
plan to a significant change, she should be permitted to offer her 
amendment on this matter.
  As my colleagues will recall, this was the one key feature of the 
health care reform debate that most of us seemed to agree on during 
that ill-fated debate on the issue last year, that all Americans should 
be able to participate in the health care plan that Members of 
Congress, their staffs, and Federal employees have access to. 
Unfortunately, we will not be permitted to debate that simple 
proposition today because the majority on the Committee on Rules voted 
on a straight party line vote not to provide the amendment with the 
gentlewoman from Colorado with the waivers it needed.
  We also attempted unsuccessfully to make in order the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] which would have 
authorized the collection of taxes from former American citizens who 
renounced their citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. This is a 
very clearcut issue, Mr. Speaker. We feel strongly that any wealthy 
American who renounces his or her citizenship in order to avoid paying 
taxes on the wealth they have amassed while they have enjoyed the 
benefits of U.S. citizenship should not be rewarded. Unfortunately, the 
Members of the House have been denied again the right to vote on this 
amendment.
  We also sought to make in order two amendments dealing with the 
deficit lockbox issue. The Members, including the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman], have been tenacious in arguing their position on this 
important issue. We continue to believe that they should be allowed to 
offer their amendment to this year's appropriations bills. We 
understand the leadership has scheduled a markup session for this week 
on legislation dealing with this issue.
  We certainly welcome that response to an issue that we have been 
discussing for weeks, but it does not completely allay our concerns. 
That is, after all, only a committee markup session. We do not know 
what will happen after that.
  Mr. Speaker, it simply does not make sense to pass a measure 
requiring that all money cut be applied directly 

[[Page H 7085]]

to deficit reduction after the appropriations process is over. That is 
too late. The point is to take any spending cut amendments from these 
appropriations bills, including the one we are discussing today, and 
apply those to deficit reduction. If we approve a lockbox bill at the 
end of the process, that is too late. As it is, we are already behind 
schedule.
  As Members should know, one of the Brewster amendments we sought to 
make in order last night would have amended House rules by creating a 
deficit reduction lockbox that would have applied all money cut to 
deficit reduction during not only the remainder of this year's 
appropriations cycle, but also would have travel locked in any spending 
cuts made by the House so far this year.
  We also sought, Mr. Speaker, to make in order several other 
amendments, including four offered by
 the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the ranking minority member 
of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
of the Committee on Appropriations that would have restored badly 
needed funding for the Federal Elections Commission and for the White 
House offices. We are particularly concerned about the political nature 
of these cuts.

  As Members of the minority pointed out in their views on the 
committee report, the cuts in the President's Office are contrary to 
the longstanding practices of the committee, regardless of the 
political party in power in the White House. The Office of the White 
House is the office of the President, and should be treated in a 
nonpartisan manner.
  In addition, the FEC is already operating under severe budgetary 
constraints, and the cuts in this bill will severely hamper its ability 
to carry out its responsibilities to assure the integrity of elections. 
We should all be very concerned about this cut, Mr. Speaker. We talk 
constantly about the need to protect our process and keep it free from 
outside interests, but this cut is clearly an attempt to reduce the 
effectiveness of the one agency that oversees in some objective manner 
the election process.
  Many of us are deeply disappointed that H.R. 2020 prohibits Federal 
employees from choosing a health care policy that provides a full range 
of reproductive health services, including abortions. In 1993, we 
wisely reversed this policy that had been in place for a decade. The 
reinstatement of this policy threatens the right of Federal employees 
to choose to have an abortion, a right that has been guaranteed by the 
Supreme Court, and it discriminates against women in public service. I 
regret that we are taking one more step against ensuring that all women 
have the right to a safe and legal abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about many other provisions of H.R. 
2020, but we feel most of them can be addressed by the open rule this 
resolution provides. Unfortunately, we will be unable to address the 
restoration of funds for the Council on Economic Advisers, a panel that 
has always provided us with a long-term look at the economy that we in 
this body too often ignore.
  The bill also cuts, we believe unwisely, funds for the Internal 
Revenue Service. That makes no sense to us, when we are trying to 
balance the budget to improve the ability of the IRS to bring in more 
revenues. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose the rule, 
although we are very concerned, as I have tried to make clear, that we 
were unable to make in order several key amendments that should have 
been provided waivers by the committee on rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
                              {time}  1040

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding me this time.
  He is a very, very energetic member of the Committee on Rules and has 
brought us a very good rule today. I think it is a very fair rule. It 
is open. It provides necessary protection under the specific rules for 
the fact that the Congress as a whole we recognize is somewhat behind 
in all of our authorizing programs, and this rule was set up to help us 
get back on schedule in completing our appropriations work as soon as 
possible, which obviously is priority business for our Nation.
  As the chairman of the Legislative and Budget Process Subcommittee, 
which has jurisdiction over the lockbox issue, I want to address the 
concern we have heard from a number of Members on this subject both in 
the Committee on Rules hearings and in the corridors and the 
cloakrooms, Members on both sides of the aisle.
  We need to move ahead with the lockbox measure, and we are. Tuesday 
of last week, our subcommittee held a joint hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology 
which is chaired by our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Horn].
  Our staff has been working practically nonstop since that time, 
including over the hot days of this weekend, to craft a workable 
lockbox mechanism. We now have scheduled a full Committee on Rules 
markup for this Thursday morning.
  I know to some Members it seems that this is a simple concept and we 
should have gotten this done quickly. I would suggest that moving this 
fast around here is lightning-like, compared to the usual glacial pace.
  Locking in savings for deficit reduction once the Congress votes to 
make cuts in spending bills sounds like a good idea, and it is, and it 
should be easy to implement, and it is not. There are important rules 
and technical considerations that simply have to be worked out. There 
are a lot of players in this.
  The Budget Act is a very complicated document, as we all know, and we 
want to be sure we are closing all the loopholes while we are retaining 
the power to make the necessary decisions to bring our budget into 
balance, which we have also promised we will do and voted to do, and we 
are on that glide path.
  It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure we get the thing right 
the first time, and I do not think I need to remind my colleagues of 
the countless times we have rushed headlong into something, swept by 
the momentum of the moment, only to find we have to go back and rewrite 
it because we made mistakes. The catastrophic health bill comes to 
mind, something I remember very well.
  It is a bit like speeding to the airport to catch a plane. When the 
policeman pulls you over and gives you a ticket, you end up missing the 
plane and having to pay the speeding fine. I do not see any reason to 
do that.
  I assure my colleagues that I and the chairman of our Committee on 
Rules, who has just entered the Chamber and I am sure will speak to 
this, are fully committed to bringing forward a workable product on a 
lockbox that can be applied to the appropriations work we have already 
done and are continuing to do for the fiscal year. In fact, we have the 
legislative draft ready and we are working that out now with the 
interested players. I see no reason why we do not have a good product 
that will survive the markup very well.
  This is on fast track. It will be done. The plane is leaving the 
runway. We just want to make sure that we get to our destination of 
deficit reduction without hitting a mountain along the way.
  I urge support for this rule. I think it is a good, fair rule. I have 
spoken on the lockbox because it is an issue of concern to a great many 
people on both sides. I would point out that if we do this the right 
way with the lockbox, we will be using as our guideposts our CBO 
figures, which are considerably better in terms of conserving dollars 
than the OMB figures, which are statutory, because our budget targets 
are lower.
  I think that is an extremely important point. I realize it is 
technical, inside-the-beltway baseball to be talking about that, but I 
think our Members need to be sure that the savings are real and that 
they are made.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I rise in opposition 
because of 

[[Page H 7086]]
the lockbox, an issue that I have been greatly concerned with over the 
last 4 or 5 years. In fact, the origins of this proposal occurred at 
one of our Democratic retreats when the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman], and myself were sitting down and wondering why 
do we not do something like this?
  My question to the majority is, why are we stalling on the lockbox? 
We all know that without this amendment, all spending cuts in 
appropriations bills are a sham. The funds cut from one program are 
transferred to another program during a closed-door conference. We have 
seen this happen year after year after year.
  Let us try something completely novel in the appropriations process--
honesty. If we are going to say that we are going to cut spending, if 
we are going to boast to our constituents that we cut waste and saved 
taxpayer dollars, let us be honest about it. Let us give Members a 
chance to dedicate those funds that are cut to deficit reduction.
  Our constituents would be shocked to learn that spending cuts won in 
hard-fought floor battles have absolutely no impact on the deficit. I 
reject the notion that somehow the lockbox is too complicated to work 
procedurally. My constituents understand it immediately. Mr. Speaker, 
if there is a will, there is a way.
  The lockbox should have been enacted before the House took up this 
year's appropriation bills because once again these bills are filled 
with pork. I have heard what the gentleman from Florida has said, but 
we have no guarantee a separate bill passes the Senate, where every 
Senator has lots of little goodies in every appropriation bill. We have 
no guarantee of anything other than that there will be some bill on the 
floor here. If you put it in the appropriations process, that is where 
it is going to happen. So let us not fool people.
  Last year the Schumer-Crapo-Brewster-Harman lockbox had the support 
of 135 Members, including then Minority Whip Gingrich, Representatives 
Kasich, Solomon, and Armey, and a whole bevy of spending cutters on the 
other side.
  I do not understand why a bill that made so much sense to the 
Republican leadership in 1994 is anathema in 1995. I commend both 
Democrats and Republicans who say ``no'' to this restrictive rule and 
``yes'' to the lockbox.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, someone, if there is anyone, who proves that where 
there is a will, there is a way with regard to fiscal responsibility, 
so much so that on Thursday, just 2 days from now, he has scheduled a 
markup precisely of legislation on this lockbox issue.
  I am very proud of that. I know we have other Members on the floor 
such as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley] here who have worked very hard on this issue. I 
want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for scheduling 
that markup and for working so hard and diligently with such 
extraordinary leadership on this issue.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the very distinguished gentleman from Miami, FL, 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I sort of hesitate to stand up now because I get my 
hackles up. I have a Siberian Husky dog. When he really gets concerned, 
the fur stands up on his back, and he is ready to attack. Well, I am 
not going to attack right now, but I just have to call attention to the 
previous speaker. He is a colleague of mine that I served with in the 
New York State Legislature. I will say this with all due respect 
because he probably is recognizing his constituency in New York City, 
but he is, according to the National Taxpayers Union, one of the 
biggest spenders in the Congress and has been since the day he arrived 
here--following through with his previous record in the New York State 
Legislature.
  So when I hear people that are worried about a lockbox and they want 
to enact a lockbox because it is going to save money, I just sort of 
have to chuckle. But nevertheless, I will assume that he is going to 
vote for a lockbox. We are going to put a lockbox out on this floor. We 
are going to go to the Committee on Rules on Thursday.
  I see some of the Members on the other side of the aisle flinching, 
because they really are worried about a lockbox becoming part of the 
law, not just a rule of the House but the law of the land. They are 
shrinking over there. But I am not. Neither are the sponsors of this 
legislation, H.R. 1923. This is 1,200 pages of cuts. It cuts 
everything. We put this together, our balanced budget task force, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the other Members, so that it 
would be a guide to all of the Members who really are serious about 
getting this terrible, terrible deficit under control, this sea of red 
ink which is just literally turning this country into a debtor nation. 
What is less compassionate than that when we become a debtor nation, 
because you are not going to be able to take care of those people that 
truly need help?
  Let me tell what the lockbox does that we will markup on Thursday. It 
may be subject to change because every Member should have input.
  Number one, let me give an example. The House votes to reduce 
spending in an appropriations bill by $100 million. I am going to vote 
for it. I have voted for all of these cuts that we see on the floor day 
by day, whether it is the National Endowment for the Arts, whatever it 
is. I am voting for it because we have to get this spending under 
control. But let us say the House passes a $100 million cut. Maybe it 
eliminates the space station or whatever it does. The Senate, the other 
body, enacts a $50 million cut on that particular function in the 
budget. The difference is between $50 and $100 million. Now we go to 
conference. I see the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] sitting over 
there. This proposal does not tie the hands of the appropriators. It 
lets the House work its will following the committee system, as it 
should, because that is the only way we are going to make sure that 
this body functions as it has functioned for 219 years.
  The difference is now between $50 and $100 million. They compromise 
it out at $75 million. It goes back to both Houses for approval. Both 
Houses approve it.
  The $75 million then is locked in. We automatically lower the 602(a) 
allocations, we automatically lower the 602(b) allocation. That is 
confusing to the people in the galleries and in the audience, but what 
that does is this: It means that once those 602(b) allocations are 
lowered, the money can never be spent again. It can never be 
redistributed. It is gone. But this is fair. To change that, we would 
have to come back on this floor of the House and the Senate and pass a 
resolution raising those 602(b) allocations or 602(a) allocations back 
up again.
  Mr. Speaker, that is lockbox. This is not some phony thing to 
supposedly take some invisible money, put it in a box and leave it 
there for some later Congress, or later on in this particular Congress, 
for Congress to change its mind. We do not do that at all. We do not 
appropriate the money in the first place and we do not allow it to be 
spent in the second place later on. That is what we are going to do.
  I am going to challenge everybody on both sides of the aisle, all the 
so-called deficit hawks. Put your vote where your mouth is. We are 
going to come to this floor with a lockbox bill. I expect every one of 
you to vote for it, especially those that have been standing up here 
saying ``we're for it,'' and we are going to see how this Congress 
comes down.
  I predict that this Congress will pass that legislation. Once we do 
pass the lockbox as a freestanding piece of legislation, then we have 
ready an amendment which we can attach to every appropriations bill if 
necessary, and we will have true savings in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what is going to happen. I do not know how we 
can move any faster than this, particularly when we have Members on the 
other side of the aisle and Members on our side of the aisle that do 
not want a lockbox. But the vast majority of us do. This is the we to 
get it.
  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, deficit hawks--freshmen Members--lockbox 

[[Page H 7087]]
  supporters--Members of the House--defeat this rule.
  Last week, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee told 
this Member on this floor of his intention to have the committee report 
a rule before the August recess that permitted consideration of the 
bipartisan lockbox deficit reduction amendment.
  The gentleman is sincere and has worked diligently with me, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], and other lockbox supporters in 
that effort. And the news of Thursday's markup is heartening.
  But prior experience in a related issue causes me to say, ``Fool me 
once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.''
  Let me remind my colleagues of similar promises made in the last 
Congress by leaders of my party. Democratic leaders promised that the 
A-to-Z bill, cosponsored by a majority of House Members, would come to 
the floor. ``Soon'' was the operative word.
  Soon Labor Day passed. Soon Halloween passed. Soon Thanksgiving 
passed. No A-to-Z bill. Soon the Congress adjourned.
  Now, with control transferred to the other party, the same kinds of 
promises are being made. The same kinds of institutional forces are 
coming into play. The gentleman from New York promised lockbox would be 
available as an amendment to an appropriations bill. Now we are told 
that lockbox can't come to the floor until after Labor Day--after the 
House has passed all its appropriations bills.
  Today, however, we can avoid that scenario. We are asking Members to 
help make the gentleman from New York's commitment a reality. Today, a 
majority of this House can defeat the bill and direct the Rules 
Committee to make the bipartisan lockbox amendment in order.
  As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, this is the lockbox. Look, it's 
empty. It's empty despite more than $132 million in savings this body 
has voted in amendments to five appropriation bills.
  It's empty because the Rules Committee has, at the direction of the 
House leadership, again declined to recommend a rule making in order 
the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment requiring spending cuts made to 
bills during floor debate be used solely for deficit reduction.
  And the lockbox will remain empty unless my colleagues join in voting 
to defeat the previous question and the rule providing for 
consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
  Let the will of majority rule this House.
  Vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question and vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], someone who has arrived recently in 
the House and yet in the short time that he has been here has already 
distinguished himself on a number of issues and especially this issue 
of requiring deficit reduction by a specific mechanism that will be 
targeted to that purpose. Of course it has become known as the lockbox 
issue. As the chairman of the Committee on Rules has stated, on 
Thursday, just the day after tomorrow, we are going to mark up in the 
Committee on Rules specific legislation to carry this out.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for hearing us on this issue.
  The lockbox is critical to this freshman and to many like myself who 
came to Congress. I have heard the discussion from others that suggest 
that this is merely an attempt to stall and to delay. I have to have 
some faith in this process and for the Members I serve with in order 
for this House to work.
  I have met with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I have met 
with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the 
House. I have met with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the 
majority leader, on this issue. They have looked me in the eye and 
assured me that the lockbox will be coming to the floor before the 
August recess.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Rules 
Committee, has guaranteed us a Thursday hearing on the full bill. He 
has been a vocal proponent of the lockbox and has gone with us to every 
meeting so that we would not be on that proverbial branch hanging out 
by ourselves.
  For those of my colleagues who are unaware of what the lockbox is, it 
is a simple accounting mechanism to ensure that spending reductions 
made in the House on appropriations bills are applied toward deficit 
reduction and not inserted as additional spending later in the 
appropriations process.
   My friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], knows the 
frustration of saving money in the process, to have it swept away by 
another appropriator or another Member of this Congress to help them in 
their districts.
  Mr. Speaker, we were elected to represent the entirety of the United 
States of America. It is time that each Member of Congress stopped 
looking at their district as the only thing they have to be concerned 
about. If we are to save this Nation, it is going to take 435 dedicated 
men and women preserving this democracy and the fiscal freedom that 
this Nation deserves for itself and future generations.
  With the assurance from the chairman, I rise in support of the rule. 
The newspapers carry stories we were going to oppose the Treasury-
Postal rule on the floor today. But I am going to give them this 
opportunity to prove me right, that the truth and the word of a Member 
is a bond to another Member.
  It is the one thing I learned when I first got elected to the House 
of Representatives in the State of Florida. A Member's word was his 
bond. You had to trust it like the proverbial handshake amongst 
business associates. We are going to give it this one opportunity. I 
trust the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, I do trust the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is 
going to give us this vote next week, I say to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman]. I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and 
Republicans, to give us this one chance to prove them right. If they 
are not, we will join together in the next attempt to prove us willing 
to move this House in the direction of taking savings and making those 
savings accrue to the benefit of the American taxpayer.

                              {time}  1100


                       tribute to lenore donnelly

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair 
acknowledges the contributions of Ms. Lenore Donnelly as chief 
Democratic page as she announces the Presidential messenger and as she 
plans to embark upon a well-deserved retirement.
  Lenny has been truly instrumental in ensuring the integrity of the 
page program. She has contributed immeasurably to the education and 
sense of public service of many young men and young women and the House 
certainly wishes her well. Congratulations.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order 
for 1 minute.)


                       tribute to lenore donnelly

  Mr. HOYER. I join the Speaker in his similar, kind remarks regarding 
Lenore Donnelly; as we affectionately know her, Lenny. She is an 
extraordinary public official. Too often the public does not see those 
who labor. They see the people at the front desk on the television from 
time to time, but there are so many others around this Chamber who are 
absolutely critical to the functioning of this organization, to the 
ensuring that we have the materials at our desks, the Congressional 
Record at our desks.
  We recruit and appoint, from all over this country, young people to 
come here to learn about their democracy. I have, and others have, the 
opportunity to talk about our pages. But we put into the hands of a few 
people the stewardship of those pages and Lenny Donnelly is one of 
those people.
  Mr. Speaker, you only need to talk to the pages to understand her 
vision for them, the affection with which she is held, and the respect 
with which she is held by so many of them.
  We want to tell Lenny at this point in time, and there will be an 
opportunity over the next 24 hours to say some additional words, how 
very much all of us in this House appreciate the care and the 
commitment and contribution she has made to the functioning of this 
House. 

[[Page H 7088]]

  Lenny has done an extraordinary service for her country and an 
extraordinary service for this House. She has befriended all of us who 
serve here with her and we thank her so much for that.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the rule we have before us today is a 
mixed blessing. The rule is good because it does not include a number 
of legislative riders that should be debated on other bills. The 
Committee on Rules has decided not to make these in order, and I hope 
it will set an example, frankly, for other bills. We are debating, 
right now, the VA-HUD bill, which is replete, a third of the bill is 
authorizing language, very frankly.
  But, unfortunately, in an zeal to bring the Treasury-Postal bill to 
the floor, the Committee on Rules has failed to make in order a number 
of amendments that I personally wanted to propose. Although they meet 
the criteria for an appropriation bill, they do not meet the technical 
qualifications of the new House rule.
  It seems to me that this is inappropriate, because they dealt with 
action taken on appropriations issues within the committee.
  For instance, I had hoped to offer an amendment to restore funds for 
the Council of Economic Advisers, the CEA. The Council of Economic 
Advisers is a critical agency which advises the President. It was zero-
funded in our bill.
  This rule, unfortunately, because of the new rule dealing with 
titles, makes me unable, because there is no language in the bill, to 
even offer the amendment to have the policy judgment before this House 
as to whether or not we ought to restore funding, that is an 
appropriation, for the Council of Economic Advisers. It seems to me 
that that is right on point on this bill and ought to be allowed. 
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules saw fit not to allow that 
amendment.
  In addition, the agency responsible for monitoring Federal mandates, 
the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, was also 
eliminated and it is not in order for me to suggest the restoration of 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand neither of these provisions are made in 
order under the rule. I will, however, continue to press for the 
approval for both of these important areas of government as this 
process moves forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that the Committee on Rules did 
not make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Ward] to close a loophole in the so-called billionaires tax. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] would have given 
the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to collect taxes from 
individuals who have renounced their U.S. citizenship; billionaires 
profiting from being Americans in the greatest economic free-market 
system in the world and who now simply move overseas and say, ``Yeah, 
it was a great country and I earned a lot of money from it, but I am 
not going to help pay taxes.''
  I am sure the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] will speak about it 
in the future; billionaires and other wealthy Americans who have 
renounced their U.S. citizenship yet are no longer participating.
  Mr. Speaker, because of these inconsistencies, I regret that I am not 
going to be able to support this rule and I will oppose the previous 
question. I am hopeful that that will lose and that then we can offer 
an alternative rule which will give us an opportunity to consider items 
which are legitimately within the purview of the appropriations process 
and are not authorization issues, such as whether we ought to fund 
certain agencies.
  The perverseness of the rule that was adopted at the beginning of 
this session in effect gags Members, if the Committee on Rules chooses 
to not protect them, whenever an appropriation committee decides to 
eliminate an agency. Clearly, Members ought to have the opportunity to 
come back and say, ``No, we ought to restore that agency and have that 
debate.'' Under the circumstances of this rule, we will not be able to 
do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I will have a lot to say, of course, on the substance of 
the bill when and if we get there. But I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I 
will not be able to support this particular rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I do not believe we have 
any other speakers on this side of the aisle, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on this issue, I 
want to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], in talking about Lenny Donnelly. As a new member, she has been 
helpful and kind and generous with her time and with her advice and she 
is back doing it again now.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to add my thoughts, my comments, to what the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has said. There are many people who 
work here who were not elected to work here and maybe could find jobs 
where they got to go home at night.
  But Ms. Donnelly, Lenny, as of course we know her, has been here. She 
has stayed and she has worked and she has made a fine contribution to 
this body and to this Nation and for that I think we all owe her a 
special debt of appreciation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of voting against the 
previous question and against the rule. I say it that way because what 
I think Members need to understand is that today's vote on the previous 
question is the only way, the only opportunity we can get the Members 
of this body on record on this issue of closing the expatriate 
billionaire's tax loophole.
  I have to say it slowly, because it is a mouthful: The expatriate 
billionaire's tax loophole. What that means in real English is that 
people who have succeeded, people who have inherited, people who have 
benefited financially in an incredibly great way from the success that 
this country offers people and have become so wealthy, they have become 
so wealthy that it is economically valuable to them to renounce their 
citizenship are doing so. It is not hundreds, but it is dozens and it 
is an incredible thing to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask myself when I think of this issue, and I ask those 
in the body to think of it this way, can they imagine, they are at 
home, they are coming out of church or are at a grocery, somewhere in 
the neighborhood, and somebody says, ``Mike, I haven't seen you in a 
long time. Where have you been?'' Can my colleagues imagine saying, 
``Well, I had to take up residence in the Bahamas, because I wanted to 
save on my taxes; I have renounced my citizenship''?
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think any who are listening today can imagine 
saying that, but that is what people are doing. All we are asking, as 
we have asked 12 times before, all we are asking is that they pay their 
fair share of taxes.
  We are not asking them to pay extra. Gracious no. We are not asking 
them to go beyond what others are doing. We are saying: Pay your fair 
share. Do what is right, what is expected of you as a citizen, to share 
in the obligations we have, really, in return for the success that the 
greatest economic power offers us.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason I need an extra minute is to say that this is 
the 13th time that this issue has been brought up. The 13th time that 
the Members of this body have had an opportunity, in one form or 
another, to deal with this issue and do what is right.
  So what I am asking my colleagues to do today is to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question and to consider that a vote on the issue of 
making sure that billionaires do not renounce their citizenship without 
paying their fair share. A ``no'' on the previous question will put us 
all on record on this issue.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, the House this year has already passed 
amendments equalling over $132 million in savings. Most of those so-
called savings have already been swept up by the Appropriations 
Committee for additional spending. Just last week the Appropriations 
Committee reallocated over $800 million in savings for additional 
spending.

[[Page H 7089]]

  The Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment to the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill would capture all savings achieved from cuts not 
only from this year, but in the years to come.
  This morning I have learned that the Rules Committee has scheduled a 
markup for the lockbox on Thursday. I commend the committee for also 
recognizing the urgency and importance of the lockbox.
  But, I would point out that the longer we wait to attach the lockbox 
to an appropriations bill, the more savings we lose, and the more 
difficult it becomes to ensure the lockbox's passage in the Senate.
  I urge the Rules Committee to make a commitment today to bring the 
lockbox to the floor as an amendment to a appropriations bill before 
the August recess. We cannot continue to wait any longer to make sure 
the cuts we make on the floor directly to deficit reduction.
  I have worked with many Members of both sides of the aisle over the 
last 2 years on the lockbox. And, every Member I have worked with 
agrees that savings from floor amendments should not be swallowed up 
and spent later. It must go to deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to bring the lockbox to the floor 
today, and allow Members to offer amendments to the lockbox. Let's have 
a fair and open debate of this House about the merits of the lockbox 
while we still have the chance to make it apply to this fiscal year.
  Vote against this rule, and bring back the lockbox for floor debate 
today.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, we shall offer an amendment to the rule 
that will add two new sections to the rule. The effect would be, first, 
to incorporate the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendments into House rules; 
and to make in order three amendments to the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill: The Brewster amendment to the bill, the Ward 
amendment and the Schroeder amendment, all of which I alluded to in my 
opening statement.
                              {time}  1115

  The new section 2 of the rule would amend House rules to do three 
things: First, reduce the 602(a) and 602(b) allocation in the House to 
reflect any amendments adopted by the House to cut Federal spending; 
second, to create a lockbox, to require all spending cuts made during 
the remainder of this year's appropriations cycle to deficit reduction; 
and, third, to retroactively lock in any spending cuts made in the 
House so far this year.
  The new section 3 of the rule would waive points of order against 
three amendments I just mentioned, a Brewster amendment to apply the 
lockbox to all appropriations bills, not just the 13 general 
appropriations bills, the amendment by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Ward] to authorize the IRS to collect taxes from former American 
citizens who renounce citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes, and, 
finally, the Schroeder amendment to make all Americans eligible to 
participate in the Federal employees' health benefits plan.
  I urge defeat of the previous question so these good amendments can 
be made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the 
amendments that we proposed, as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       (a) clause 4(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(4)(A) Upon the engrossment in the House of any general 
     appropriation bill (or resolution making continuing 
     appropriations (if applicable)), the chairman of the 
     Committee on Appropriations shall--
       ``(i) reduce the suballocation of new budget authority to 
     the appropriate subcommittee of that committee made under 
     section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by 
     the net amount of reductions in new budget authority 
     resulting from amendments agreed to by the House to that 
     bill, and
       ``(ii) reduce the suballocation of outlays made under 
     section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     the appropriate subcommittee of that committee by the net 
     amount of reductions in outlays resulting from amendments 
     agreed to by the House to that bill,

     and promptly report those revisions to the House.
       ``(B) The reductions in suballocations made under 
     subdivision (A) may not be reallocated by the Committee on 
     Appropriations to any other subcommittee.
       ``(C) In the House of Representatives, the revised 
     suballocations made under subdivision (A) shall be deemed to 
     be suballocations made under section 602(b)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.''.
       (b) Clause 4(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``Upon the reporting of revised suballocations 
     to the House by the Committee on Appropriations under 
     paragraph (a), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall make appropriate revisions in the allocations to the 
     Committee on Appropriations to
      reflect the revised suballocations and report those 
     revisions to the House. In the House of Representatives, 
     those revised allocations shall be deemed to be 
     allocations made under section 602(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.''.
       (c) Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``9. (a) Any appropriation bill that is being marked up by 
     the Committee on Appropriations (or a subcommittee thereof) 
     of either House shall contain a line item entitled `Deficit 
     Reduction Lock-box'. The dollar amount set forth under that 
     heading shall be an amount not to exceed the amount by which 
     the appropriate 602(b) allocation of new budget authority 
     exceeds the amount of new budget authority provided by that 
     bill as reported by that committee.
       ``(b) Whenever the Committee on Appropriations of either 
     House reports an appropriation bill, that bill shall contain 
     a line item entitled `Deficit Reduction Account' comprised of 
     the following:
       ``(1) Only in the case of the first appropriation bill 
     considered following enactment of this resolution, an amount 
     equal to the amounts by which the discretionary spending 
     limit for new budget authority and outlays set forth in the 
     most recent Office of Management and Budget sequestration 
     preview Report pursuant to section 601(a)(2) exceed the 
     section 602(a) allocation for the fiscal year covered by that 
     bill and the amount by which the appropriate 602(b) 
     allocation of new budget authority for appropriations bills 
     adopted by the House prior to enactment of this resolution 
     exceeded the amount of new budget authority provided by such 
     bill.
       ``(2) Only in the case of any general appropriation bill 
     (or resolution making continuing appropriations (if 
     applicable)), an amount not to exceed the amount by which the 
     appropriate section 602(b) allocation of new budget authority 
     exceeds the amount of new budget authority provided by that 
     bill (as reported by that committee).
       ``(3) Only in the case of any bill making supplemental 
     appropriations following enactment of all general 
     appropriation bills for the same fiscal year, an amount not 
     to exceed the amount by which the section 602(a) allocation 
     of new budget authority exceeds the sum of all new budget 
     authority provided by appropriation bills enacted for that 
     fiscal year plus that supplemental appropriation bill (as 
     reported by that committee).
       ``(e) Whenever a Member of either House of Congress offers 
     an amendment (whether in subcommittee, committee, or on the 
     floor) to an appropriation bill to reduce spending, that 
     reduction shall be placed in the deficit reduction lock-box 
     unless that Member indicates that it is to be utilized for 
     another program, project, or activity covered by that bill. 
     If the amendment is agreed to and the reduction was placed in 
     the deficit reduction lock-box, then the line item entitled 
     `Deficit Reduction Lock-box' shall be increased by the amount 
     of that reduction.''.
       Sec. 3
       All points of order are waived against the following 
     amendments:
       1. An amendment to be offered by Representative Schroeder 
     of Colorado or her designee.
       Page 84, after line 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 618. Provisions to make FEHBP Available to the General 
     Public.--(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8915. Provisions to require that benefits be extended 
       to the general public

       ``(a) A contract may not be made or a plan approved unless 
     the carrier agrees to offer to the general public, throughout 
     each term for which the contract or approval remains 
     effective, the same benefits (subject to the same maximums, 
     limitations, exclusions, and other similar terms or 
     conditions) as would be offered under such contract or plan 
     to employees and annuitants and their family members.
       ``(b)(1) Premiums for coverage under this section shall be 
     established in conformance with such requirements as the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall be regulation prescribe, 
     including provisions to ensure conformance with generally 
     accepted standards and practices associated with community 
     rating.
       ``(2) In no event shall the enactment of this section 
     result in--
       ``(A) any increase in the level of individual or Government 
     contributions required under 

[[Page H 7090]]
     section 8906 or any other provision of this chapter, including 
     copayments or deductibles;
       ``(B) any decrease in the types of benefits offered under 
     this chapter; or
       ``(C) any other change that would adversely affect the 
     coverage afforded under this chapter to employees and 
     annuitants and their family members.
       ``(c) Benefits under this section shall, with respect to an 
     individual who is entitled to benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security benefits) to the same extend and 
     in the same manner as if coverage were under the preceding 
     provisions of this chapter, rather than under this section.
       ``(d)(1)A carrier may file an application with the Office 
     setting forth reasons why it, or a plan provided by such 
     carrier, should be excluded from the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(2) In reviewing any such application, the Office may 
     consider such factors as--
       ``(A) any bona fide enrollment restrictions which would 
     make the application of this section inappropriate, including 
     those common to plans which are limited to individuals having 
     a past or current employment relationship with a particular 
     agency or other authority of the Government;
       ``(B) whether compliance with this section would jeopardize 
     the financial solvency of the plan or carrier, or otherwise 
     compromise its ability to offer health benefits under the 
     preceding provisions of this chapter; and
       ``(C) the anticipated duration of the requested exclusion, 
     and what efforts the plan or carrier proposes to take in 
     order to be able to comply with this section.
       ``(e) Except as the Office may be regulation prescribe, any 
     reference to this chapter (or any requirement of this 
     chapter), made in any provision of law, shall not be 
     considered to include this section (or any requirement of 
     this section).''.
       (2) The table of sections for chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``8915. Provisions to require that benefits be extended to the general 
              public.''.

       (b) Standardized Claims Processing.--Section 8902 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o) A claim for payment or reimbursement under this 
     chapter (whether electronic or otherwise) shall be submitted 
     on such a standard form or in such a standard manner as may 
     be required by the Office in relation to health benefit 
     plans. Each contract under this chapter shall include 
     appropriate provisions to carry out the preceding 
     sentence.''.
       (c) Advance Directives.--Section 8907 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) The Office shall--
       ``(1) prepare information relating to the use of advance 
     directives regarding the type or intensity of care which an 
     individual desires in the event that such individual becomes 
     unable to communicate by reason of incapacity due to illness 
     or injury; and
       ``(2) require, as a condition for approval of any contract 
     under section 8902, that appropriate provisions be included 
     so that such information may be made available to enrollees 
     of the plan involved.''.
       (d) Demonstration Project to Examine the Feasibility of 
     Offering FEHBP Enrollees the Option of Using Arbitration 
     Instead of Litigation to Resolve Medical Malpractice 
     Claims.--(1) The Office of Personnel Management shall conduct 
     a demonstration project to assess the feasibility and 
     desirability of offering the use of arbitration, instead of 
     litigation, to resolve medical malpractice claims arising out 
     of covered health care services.
       (2) For the purpose of this subsection, the term ``covered 
     health care services'' means any care, treatment, or other 
     service for which the individual who receives such service 
     has coverage under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3)(A) The demonstration project shall be conducted as a 
     demonstration project under section 4703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (B) In developing a plan for such project under section 
     4703 of title 5, United States Code, the Office shall include 
     (in addition to any information otherwise required)--
       (i) suggestions for incentives that may be offered in order 
     to obtain the voluntary participation of enrollees, such as 
     reductions in premiums, copayments, or deductibles;
       (ii) the criteria for identifying the types of health 
     benefit plans which are appropriate for inclusion, and the 
     procedures and conditions in accordance with which any such 
     plan may participate;
       (iii) the general framework for arbitration, including (to 
     the extent the Office considers appropriate) methods for the 
     selection of arbitrators, length of hearings, and limitations 
     on damages; and
       (iv) the effect of an award resulting from the arbitration 
     process, and the extent to which review of such an award may 
     be obtained.
       (4) The evaluation required under section 4703(h) of title 
     5, United States Code, with respect to the demonstration 
     project shall include data and analysis relating to matters 
     such as--
       (A) the number of claims brought for arbitration;
       (B) how those claims were disposed of (whether by 
     settlement, hearing, or otherwise), and the percentage of the 
     total number of claims represented by each;
  (C) the average dollar amount of those awards or settlements;
       (D) the various costs involved in connection with those 
     claims; and
       (E) the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, 
     relative to other methods of dispute resolution, and the 
     extent to which arbitration should continue to be used under 
     chapter 89 of such title.
       (e) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to contract terms beginning after 
     the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       2. An amendment to be offered by Representative Ward of 
     Kentucky or his designee.
       On page 84, following line 17, insert the following 
     provision:
       Sec. 664. The Secretary of the Treasury or a designee of 
     the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby granted the authority 
     to collect taxes in the manner prescribed under the 
     provisions of H.R. 1535, which provides tax rules on 
     expatriation.
       3. An amendment to be offered by Representative Brewster of 
     Oklahoma or Representative Harman of California or their 
     designee.
       At the end add the following new title:

                 TITLE VII--DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX


                      deficit reduction trust fund

    deficit reduction lock-box provisions of appropriation measures

       Sec. 701. (a) Deficit Reduction Lock-box Provisions.--Title 
     III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:


     ``deficit reduction lock-box provisions of appropriation bills

       ``Sec. 314. (a) Any appropriation bill that is being marked 
     up by the Committee on Appropriations (or a subcommittee 
     thereof) of either House shall contain a line item entitled 
     `Deficit Reduction Lock-box'.
       ``(b) Whenever the Committee on Appropriations of either 
     House reports an appropriation bill, that bill shall contain 
     a line item entitled `Deficit Reduction Account' comprised of 
     the following:
       ``(1) Only in the case of any general appropriation bill 
     containing the appropriations for Treasury and Postal Service 
     (or resolution making continuing appropriations (if 
     applicable)), an amount equal to the amounts by which the 
     discretionary spending limit for new budget authority and 
     outlays set forth in the most recent OMB sequestration 
     preview report pursuant to section 601(a)(2) exceed the 
     section 602(a) allocation for the fiscal year covered by that 
     bill.
       ``(2) Only in the case of any general appropriation bill 
     (or resolution making continuing appropriations (if 
     applicable)), an amount not to exceed the amount by which the 
     appropriate section 602(b) allocation of new budget authority 
     exceeds the amount of new budget authority provided by that 
     bill (as reported by that committee), but not less than the 
     sum of reductions in budget authority resulting from adoption 
     of amendments in the committee which were designated for 
     deficit reduction.
       ``(3) Only in the case of any bill making supplemental 
     appropriations following enactment of all general 
     appropriation bills for the same fiscal year, an amount not 
     to exceed the amount by which the section 602(a) allocation 
     of new budget authority exceeds the sum of all new budget 
     authority provided by appropriation bills enacted for that 
     fiscal year plus that supplemental appropriation bill (as 
     reported by that committee).
       ``(c) It shall not be in order for the Committee on Rules 
     of the House of Representatives to report a resolution that 
     restricts the offering of amendments to any appropriation 
     bill adjusting the level of budget authority contained in a 
     Deficit Reduction Account.
       ``(d) Whenever a Member of either House of Congress offers 
     an amendment (whether in subcommittee, committee, or on the 
     floor) to an appropriation bill to reduce spending, that 
     reduction shall be placed in the deficit reduction lock-box 
     unless that Member indicates that it is to be utilized for 
     another program, project, or activity covered by that bill. 
     If the amendment is agreed to and the reduction was placed in 
     the deficit reduction lock-box, then the line item entitled 
     `Deficit Reduction Lock-box' shall be increased by the amount 
     of that reduction. Any amendment pursuant to this subsection 
     shall be in order even if amendment portions of the bill are 
     not read for amendment with respect to the Deficit Reduction 
     Lock-box.
       ``(e) It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider a conference report 
     or amendment of the Senate that modifies any Deficit 
     Reduction Lock-box provision that is beyond the scope of
      that provision as so committed to the conference committee.
       ``(f) It shall not be in order to offer an amendment 
     increasing the Deficit Reduction Lock-box Account unless the 
     amendment increases rescissions or reduces appropriations by 
     an equivalent or larger amount, except that it shall be in 
     order to offer an amendment increasing the amount in the 
     Deficit Reduction Lock-box by the amount that the appropriate 
     602(b) allocation of new budget authority exceeds the amount 
     of new budget authority provided by that bill.
       ``(g) It shall not be in order for the Committee on Rules 
     of the House of Representatives to report a resolution which 
     waives subsection (c).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control 

[[Page H 7091]]
     Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     313 the following new item:

``Sec. 314. Deficit reduction lock-box provisions of appropriation 
              measures.''.
                       changes in suballocations

       Sec. 702. (a) Downward Adjustments.--The discretionary 
     spending limit for new budget authority for any fiscal year 
     set forth in section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, as adjusted in strict conformance with section 
     251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985, shall be reduced by the amount of budget authority 
     transferred to the Deficit Reduction Lockbox for that fiscal 
     year under section 314 of the Budget Control and Impoundment 
     Act of 1974. The adjusted discretionary spending limit for 
     outlays for that fiscal year and each outyear as set forth in 
     such section 601(a)(2) shall be reduced as a result of the 
     reduction of such budget authority, as calculated by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget based upon 
     such programmatic and other assumptions set forth in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying the 
     conference report on that bill. All such reductions shall 
     occur within ten days of enactment of any appropriations 
     bill.
       (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations.
       (c) Rescission.--Funds in the Deficit Reduction Lockbox 
     shall be rescinded upon reductions in discretionary limits 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       Sec. 703. (a) Section 302(e) Amendment.--Section 302(e) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Changes in Suballocations.--(1) After a committee 
     reports suballocations under subsection (b),
      that committee may report a resolution to its House changing 
     its House changing its suballocations, which resolution 
     shall not take effect unless adopted by that House.
       ``(2) A resolution reported to the House of Representatives 
     under paragraph (1) shall be placed on the Union Calendar and 
     be privileged for consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
     after the report on the resolution has been available to 
     Members for a least three calendar days (excluding Saturday, 
     Sundays and legal holidays). After general debate which shall 
     not exceed one hour to be equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee 
     reporting the resolution, the resolution shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment shall 
     be in order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole 
     Except amendments in the nature of a substitute containing 
     changes in suballocations under subsection (b) which do not 
     breach any allocation made under subsection (a). Priority in 
     recognition for offering the first such amendment shall be 
     accorded to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget or a 
     designee. No amendments to such amendments shall be in order 
     except substitute amendments. Following the consideration of 
     the resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
     report the resolution to the House together with any 
     amendment that may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final 
     adoption without intervening motion. It shall not be in order 
     to consider a motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.''.
       (b) Section 602(B)(1) Amendment.--The last sentence of 
     section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by striking ``or revised''.


                              CBO Tracking

       Sec. 704. Section 202 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Scorekeeping.--To facilitate compliance by the 
     Committee on Appropriations with section 314, the Office 
     shall score all general appropriation measures (including 
     conference reports) as passed by the House of 
     Representatives, as passed the Senate and as enacted into 
     law. The scorecard shall include amounts contained in the 
     Deficit Reduction Lock-Box. The chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     as the case may be, shall have such scorecard published in 
     the Congressional Record.''.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed today's debate. I think it is important 
to emphasize, to recall that what we are bringing forth this morning is 
the rule to guide the debate on the appropriations bill for the 
Treasury Department, the Postal Service and the Office of the 
President. This is not a tax bill. This is the appropriations bill for 
those agencies of the Federal Government.
  With regard to the lockbox issue that was debated, I think very well 
and at length, I would simply like to remind Members that day after 
tomorrow the Committee on Rules will hold a markup precisely on the 
issue of the lockbox. There is specific legislation to address that 
issue that has been worked on at considerable length that, of course, 
is always improvable but that we feel confident achieves the purposes 
that those who have worked so hard on this issue propose to achieve, 
and so we will be dealing with that issue with specific legislation 
that will be marked up in the Committee on Rules, as the chairman of 
the committee has committed to the day after tomorrow.
  So this rule, Mr. Speaker, for the deliberation, the debate on the 
appropriations legislation, the appropriations bill for the Treasury, 
the Postal Service and the Office of the President, as I stated before, 
is an open rule. It is a fair rule. I would urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 192, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 516]

                               YEAS--232

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

                               NAYS--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson

[[Page H 7092]]

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Ford
     Green
     Johnson (SD)
     Moakley
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  1139

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Waldholtz for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mr. REED, Mr. BARCIA, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. NEY, and Mr. PORTMAN changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________