[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10853-H10868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 109, SENSE 
OF CONGRESS REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS TEST REFORM, AND FURTHER 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION 
                              ACT OF 1995

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 245

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 109) expressing the sense 
     of the Congress regarding the need for reform of the social 
     security earnings limit, if called up by the majority leader 
     or his designee. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
     for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.
       Sec. 2. At any time after the 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 further consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
     to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1996. All time for general debate under the terms 
     of the order of the House of October 24, 1995, shall be 
     considered as expired. Further general debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and amendments specified in this 
     resolution and shall not exceed three hours equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Budget. After general debate the bill 
     shall considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of H.R. 2517, modified by the amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
     amendment shall be in order except the further amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
     2530, which may be offered only by the minority leader or his 
     designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the further amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. After a motion that the Committee 
     rise has been rejected on a day, the Chair may entertain 
     another such motion on that day only if offered by the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget or the majority 
     leader or a designee of either. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendment as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. The motion to recommit may include 
     instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his 
     designee. The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered on 
     the question of passage of the bill and on any conference 
     report thereon. Clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall not apply to 
     the bill, amendments thereof, or conference reports thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is 
for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 245 is the customary 
restrictive rule for considering reconciliation legislation.
  In this case the rule first makes in order the consideration in the 
House of a sense of the Congress resolution, House Congress Resolution 
109, introduced by Mr. Hastert. That resolution expresses the intent of 
Congress to pass legislation before the end of this year to raise the 
Social Security earnings limit for working seniors aged 65 through 69.
  That is an important commitment we made in our Contract With America 
and we intend to keep that commitment to America's senior citizens.
  Unfortunately, the Budget Act prohibits the consideration of 
legislation amending the Social Security Act as part of reconciliation. 
But we will vote on and pass this as a separate bill before this 
session adjourns.
  Mr. Speaker, following 20 minutes of debate on that resolution, and a 
vote on its adoption, the rule provides for the further consideration 
of H.R. 2491, the Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1995.
  And, oh, how the title of this bill says it all--the ``Seven-Year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995.'' Today we are bringing to 
final fruition our efforts of the past 10 months to deliver to the 
American people on our promise to balance the budget in 7 years.
  Yesterday, we had a full 3 hours of general debate on that bill 
pursuant to a unanimous-consent request that was granted in 
consultation with the minority leadership.
  Today this rule provides for another 3 hours of general debate before 
we 

[[Page H10854]]

consider for 1 hour a Democrat substitute that will be offered by the 
minority leader or his designee.
  Those 6 hours are three times as much general debate time as we had 
on the Clinton reconciliation bill in 1993. That is as it should be, 
though, on a bill this important.
  The rule provides for the adoption in the House and the Committee of 
the Whole of that amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
consists of the text of H.R. 2517, introduced by the Budget Committee 
chairman, as modified by the amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee's report on this rule.
  That substitute is made base text for the purpose of further 
amendment. That further amendment is the so-called coalition substitute 
which is the text of H.R. 2530, introduced by Representative Orton and 
others yesterday.
  It will be debated for 1 hour. The House will then vote on it after 
which the Committee of the Whole will rise and report the bill back to 
the House.
  Before final passage, the minority leader or a designee may offer one 
motion to recommit, with or without instructions. That is something 
that was denied us in the minority on reconciliation bills in recent 
years, but is something we guaranteed to the minority in our House 
rules reforms at the beginning of this Congress. So, the minority will 
have twice as many amendments as we were allowed when we were in the 
minority.
  Finally, the rule orders the yeas and nays on passage of the bill, 
and suspends the application of clause 5(c) of rule XXI, which requires 
a three-fifths vote on any bill, amendment or conference report 
containing a Federal income tax rate increase, against the passage of 
the bill or the adoption of any amendment or conference report thereon.
  Mr. Speaker, let me hasten to add that the Ways and Means Committee 
has certified that there are no Federal income tax rate increases 
contained in this measure we are making in order by this rule.
  The three-fifths vote requirement is being waived, nevertheless, as a 
precautionary measure to avoid any unnecessary points that might be 
made out of a misunderstanding of the rule.
  When we adopted this rule back on January 4 of this year, we placed 
an analysis in the Congressional Record at page H34. That analysis made 
clear that the term only applies to increases in the income tax rates 
contained in sections 1 and 11 of the Internal Revenue Code for 
individuals and corporations, respectively.
  These are the commonly understood marginal or bracket rates with 
which most Americans are well familiar. That is the interpretation 
which still applies today. And this bill does not increase those rates 
one iota.
  Mr. Speaker, today is not really about today's vote, as historic as 
it is, or about the past 10 months during which we struggled to develop 
this glide-path to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Today is really about the future--the future of the economy, the 
future of this country, and the futures of our children and 
grandchildren and the better world we will bestow on them by putting 
our fiscal house in order today.
  An overwhelming majority of the American people favor balancing the 
Federal budget--of ensuring that we spend no more than we take in. As 
the last election demonstrated, they fully expect us to make good our 
promises to balance the budget by making the hard choices necessary to 
achieve that goal.
  Yes, it will involve some sacrifices on the part of everyone. But 
today's temporary pain will be tomorrow's great gain for our country as 
we build a strong economic base on which to create new jobs and 
prosperity for all Americans.
  We can no longer be content to rest on the laurels of our past 
achievements. They are behind us and we are now literally drowning in a 
sea of red ink we have created by our past actions.
  We have overpromised, overspent, and underdelivered on what the 
Government alone is capable of doing. In so doing, we have stifled 
rather than promoted individual initiative and opportunity in the 
private sector which is the key to new jobs and our future growth and 
survival as a country.
  Our annual interest payments on the national debt alone are consuming 
and crowding out the capital necessary to build the kind of private 
sector growth that is so critical to our country's competing in this 
global economy.
  By our actions here today we are recognizing the need to restrain the 
voracious appetite of the Government that is devouring the hard-earned 
dollars of American workers rather than allowing them to be put to more 
productive use in the private sector to create new and better paying 
jobs.
  The time has come to put an end to the fiscal madness and insanity 
that is driving us deeper and deeper into debt. The bill before us 
reverses that trend.
  It is called a reconciliation bill because in a narrow sense it 
reconciles our spending practices with our balanced budgetary goals 
adopted last spring.
  But, in a larger sense it is a grander kind of reconciliation because 
it reconciles the grim realities of today with our hopes and dreams for 
a brighter and more prosperous future.
  We cannot achieve that glorious reconciliation with the America we 
want to leave to our posterity if we do not make the hard choices and 
votes we must confront today. We can no longer get by on espousing the 
rhetoric of a balanced budget while avoiding taking the tough but 
necessary steps to get there.
  We can no longer get by on blaming others for our failed dreams of 
balancing the budget when we have the duty and ability today by our 
votes on this bill to make those dreams a reality.
  Today, that dream is within our grasp--indeed, the vote is at our 
very fingertips. We can either vote ``yes'' for the dream of a brighter 
future, or ``no'' for a long nightmare of economic stagnation, failure, 
and collapse.
  It's in our hands; the choice is ours. Support this rule and the 
balanced budget reconciliation bill it makes in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information regarding this 
rule, and previous rules and other pertinent material:

  H. Res 245--Summary of Provisions of the Rule for Consideration of: 
House Concurrent Resolution 109--Social Security Earnings Test Reform; 
    H.R. 2491--Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995

       1. Provides for consideration in the House of a concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 109) Social Security earnings test 
     reform, debatable for 20 minutes, divided between the 
     Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees.
       2. Provides three hours of additional general debate on 
     H.R. 2491, divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
       3. Provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 2517 modified by the 
     amendments printed in the Rules Committee's report on the 
     rule shall be considered as adopted in the House and the 
     Committee of the Whole; that the bill as amended shall be 
     considered as an original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment; and that all points of order against provisions of 
     the bill as amended are waived.
       4. Provides that no amendment shall be in order to the bill 
     as amended except an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 2530, which may only be 
     offered by the Minority Leader or his designee.
       5. Provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read, shall not be subject 
     to amendment, and shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       6. Waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       7. Provides after a motion to rise has been rejected on any 
     day, another such motion may only be offered by the Majority 
     Leader or Budget Committee chairman.
       8. Provides one motion to recommit which, if containing 
     instructions, may only be offered by the Minority Leader or a 
     designee.
       9. Provides that the yeas and nays are ordered on final 
     passage and that the provisions of clause 5(c) of Rule XXI 
     (requiring a three-fifths vote on any amendment or measure 
     containing a Federal income tax rate increase) shall not 
     apply to the votes on the bill, amendments thereto or 
     conference reports thereon.
                                                                    ____


 Summary of Amendments Modifying the Text of H.R. 2517 To Form the New 
                    Base Text for Amendment Purposes

       Upton (MI): Amend Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to authorize 
     the export of new drugs if approved in recipient country. (p. 
     275, after line 11, insert new Subtitle F--``FDA Export 
     Reform and Enhancement Act'')
       Horn (CA)/Davis (VA) (modified): Add new tools for Federal 
     agencies to collect debts 
     
[[Page H10855]]

     owed to the United States to enhance debt collection and 
     improve financial management. (Inserts new Subtitle B to 
     Title V, ``Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1995,'' at page 
     333, line 15)
       Barr (GA): Strike section 7002, ``Civil Monetary Penalty 
     Surcharge and Telecommunications Carrier Compliance 
     Payments.'' (p. 416, line 3 through p. 419, line 6)
       Davis (VA): Strike section 10404, ``Collection of Parking 
     Fees,'' requiring each Executive agency to collect parking 
     fees at all Federal parking facilities. (p. 700, line 23 
     through page 701, line 19)
       Davis (VA) (modified): Amend sec. 17201(c), National 
     Technical Information Service, to provide that if an 
     appropriate arrangement for the privatization of the 
     functions of the NTI Service has not been made before the end 
     of the 18-month period, the Service shall be transferred to 
     the National Institute for Science and Technology. (p. 1588, 
     lines 3 through 7)
       Bliley (VA): Change the Medicaid allocation and lower the 
     statutory caps for discretionary spending accordingly.
                                                                    ____


   [Excerpted from the Rules Committee's report on H. Res. 245, the 
                          reconciliation rule]

       Explanation and Discussion of Clause 5(C), Rule XXI Waiver

       As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Committee has 
     provided in this rule that the provisions of clause 5(c) of 
     House Rule XXI, which require a three-fifths vote on any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report 
     ``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase,'' shall not 
     apply to the votes on passage of H.R. 2491, or to the votes 
     any amendment thereto or conference report thereon.
       The suspension of clause 5(c) of rule XXI is not being done 
     because there are any Federal income tax rate increases 
     contained in the reconciliation substitute being made in 
     order as base text by this rule. As the Committee on Ways and 
     Means has pointed out in its portion of the report on the 
     reconciliation bill--
       ``The Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of 
     Titles XIII and XIV of the revenue reconciliation provisions 
     approved by the Committee to determine whether any of these 
     provisions constitute a Federal income tax rate increase 
     within the meaning of the House Rules. It is the opinion of 
     the Committee that there is no provision of Titles XIII and 
     XIV of the revenue reconciliation provisions that constitutes 
     a Federal income tax rate increase within the meaning of 
     House Rule XXI, 5(c) or (d).''
       Nevertheless, the Committee on Rules has suspended the 
     application of clause 5(c) as a precautionary measure to 
     avoid unnecessary points of order that might otherwise arise 
     over confusion or misinterpretations of what is meant by an 
     income tax rate increase.
       Such a point of order was raised and overruled on the final 
     passage vote of H.R. 1215, the omnibus tax bill, on April 15, 
     1995. The ranking minority member of the Rules Committee 
     subsequently wrote to the chairman of this Committee 
     requesting a clarification of the rule. An exchange of 
     correspondence with the Parliamentarian and the Counsel of 
     the Joint Tax Committee was subsequently released by the 
     chairman of this Committee on June 13, 1995, regarding the 
     ruling and the provisions of the bill which gave rise to the 
     point of order.
       The Committee would simply conclude this discussion by 
     citing from the section-by-section analysis of H. Res. 6, 
     adopting House Rules for the 104th Congress, placed in the 
     Congressional Record at the time the rules were adopted on 
     January 4, 1995. With respect to clauses 5(c) and (d) which 
     require a three-fifths vote on any income tax rate increase 
     and prohibit consideration of any retroactive income tax rate 
     increase, respectively:
       ``For purposes of these rules, the term `Federal income tax 
     rate increase' is, for example, an increase in the individual 
     income tax rates established in section 1, and the corporate 
     income tax rates established in section 11, respectively, of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'' (Congressional Record, 
     Jan. 4, 1995, p. H-34)
       The rates established by those sections are the commonly 
     understood ``marginal'' tax rates or income ``bracket'' tax 
     rates applicable to various minimum and maximum income dollar 
     amounts for individuals and corporations. It is the intent of 
     this committee that the term ``Federal income tax rate 
     increase'' should be narrowly construed and confined to the 
     rates specified in those two sections. As indicated in the 
     Ways and Means Committee's report, those rates have not been 
     increased by any provision contained in H.R. 2491 as made in 
     order as base text by this resolution.

                   HOUSE RECONCILIATION RULES, 1980-93                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Congress year      Bill No.           Rule           Terms of rules   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
96th (1980).....  H.R. 7765.....  H. Res. 776.....  10-hours general    
                                                     debate (1-hr. ea.  
                                                     to 8 comms., 2-hrs.
                                                     Ways and Means); 4 
                                                     amendments allowed:
                                                     (1) Budget Comm.;  
                                                     (2) Strike         
                                                     subtitle; (3) Rep. 
                                                     Vanik (D); (4) Rep.
                                                     Bauman (R); one    
                                                     motion to recommit.
97th (1981).....  H.R. 3982.....  H. Res. 169.....  8-hrs. general      
                                                     debate, comms, of  
                                                     juris.; amendment  
                                                     in nature of       
                                                     substitute by      
                                                     chairman of Budget 
                                                     Comm.; 6 amendments
                                                     by Rep. Latta; 1-  
                                                     hr. on motion to   
                                                     recommit.          
98th (1983).....  H.R. 4169.....  H. Res. 344.....  1-hr. gen. debate,  
                                                     Budget Comm.;      
                                                     amendment in nature
                                                     of substitute made 
                                                     in order; 1        
                                                     amendment by chmn. 
                                                     Budget Comm.; one  
                                                     motion to recommit,
                                                     with or without    
                                                     instructions.      
98th (1984).....  H.R. 5394.....  H. Res. 483.....  6-hrs. gen. debate, 
                                                     Budget Comm.; (1)  
                                                     amend. by W&M      
                                                     Comm., 1-hr; (2)   
                                                     amend. by Rep.     
                                                     Pepper, 30-mins.;  
                                                     one motion to      
                                                     recommit.          
99th (1985).....  H.R. 3500.....  H. Res. 296.....  4-hrs. gen. debate, 
                                                     Budget Comm.; self-
                                                     execute amendment; 
                                                     (1) Rep. Fazio, 30-
                                                     mins; (2) Rep.     
                                                     Latta, 1-hr.; (3)  
                                                     Rep. Florio, 30-   
                                                     mins; one motion to
                                                     recommit.          
99th (1986).....  H.R. 5300.....  H. Res. 558.....  3-hrs. gen. debate, 
                                                     Budget Comm.; self-
                                                     execute amend.; (1)
                                                     Rep. Rodino, 30-   
                                                     mins.; (2) Rep.    
                                                     Rodino, 30-mins.;  
                                                     (3) Rep. Wylie, 30-
                                                     mins.; one motion  
                                                     to recommit without
                                                     instructions.      
100th (1987)....  H.R. 3545.....  H. Res. 296/298.  3-hrs. gen. debate, 
                                                     Budget Comm.; self-
                                                     execute amend.; (1)
                                                     Rep. Michel, 1-hr.;
                                                     one motion to      
                                                     recommit without   
                                                     instructions.      
101st (1989)....  H.R. 3299.....  H. Res. 245/249.  6-hrs. gen. debate, 
                                                     Budget Comm.; self-
                                                     execute amend.; 10 
                                                     amendments (D-7;R- 
                                                     3), debatable from 
                                                     30-mins. to 2-hrs. 
                                                     ea. (varies by     
                                                     amendment); one    
                                                     motion to recommit.
101st (1990)....  H.R. 5835.....  H. Res. 509.....  3-hrs. gen. debate, 
                                                     Budget Comm.; self-
                                                     execute amends.;   
                                                     (1) Rep.           
                                                     Rostenkowski, 1-   
                                                     hr.; one motion to 
                                                     recommit without   
                                                     instructions.      
103d (1993).....  H.R. 2264.....  H. Res. 186.....  2-hrs. gen. debate; 
                                                     self-execute amend.
                                                     (54 page); (1) Rep.
                                                     Kasich substitute, 
                                                     (290 pages), 1-hr.;
                                                     one motion to      
                                                     recommit without   
                                                     instructions.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of October 25, 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                 51                 70
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 18                 25
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  4                  5
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 73                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of October 25, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 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/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
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       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         


                                                                                                                

[[Page H10856]]
                    SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                    
                                            [As of October 25, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
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       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  .................
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         .................
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.                        
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced                      
                                                                        Budget.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.               

  
                                                                    ____


        Correction of Votes in Committee Report October 26, 1995

       The Rules Committee's report, House Report 104-292 on House 
     Resolution 245, the rule for the consideration of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 109 and H.R. 2491, contains three 
     erroneously reported rollcall votes due to typographical 
     errors during the printing process. The votes were correctly 
     reported in the original report filed with the Clerk.
       Below is a correct version of those votes as contained in 
     the Rules Committee report as filed with the House. The 
     amendment numbers referred to in the motions are to 
     amendments filed with the Rules Committee--a summary of which 
     are contained following the listing of votes in the committee 
     report.
       The corrected votes for Rollcall Nos. 215, 228, and 229 are 
     as follows:


                    rules committee rollcall no. 215

       Date: October 25, 1995.
       Measure: House Concurrent Resolution 109, Sense of Congress 
     on Social Security Earnings Test Reform, and H.R. 2491, The 
     Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
       Summary of Motion: Motions No. 12, No. 13, and No. 35.
       Results: Rejected, 5 to 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Vote by Member                  Yea       Nay     Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN..................................  ........        X   .........
DREIER...................................  ........        X   .........
GOSS.....................................  ........        X   .........
LINDER...................................        X   ........  .........
PRYCE....................................  ........        X   .........
DIAZ-BALART..............................  ........        X   .........
McINNIS..................................  ........        X   .........
WALDHOLTZ................................  ........        X   .........
MOAKLEY..................................        X   ........  .........
BEILENSON................................        X   ........  .........
FROST....................................        X   ........  .........
HALL.....................................        X   ........  .........
SOLOMON..................................  ........        X   .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    rules committee rollcall no. 228

       Date: October 25, 1995.
       Measure: House Concurrent Resolution, 109, Sense of 
     Congress on Social Security Earnings Test Reform, and H.R. 
     2491, The Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Hall.
       Summary of Motion: No. 30 and No. 38.
       Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Vote by Member                  Yea       Nay     Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN..................................  ........        X   .........
DREIER...................................  ........        X   .........
G0SS.....................................  ........        X   .........
LINDER...................................  ........        X   .........
PRYCE....................................  ........        X   .........
DIAZ-BALART..............................  ........        X   .........
McINNIS..................................  ........        X   .........
WALDHOLTZ................................  ........        X   .........
MOAKLEY..................................        X   ........  .........
BEILENSON................................        X   ........  .........
FROST....................................        X   ........  .........
HALL.....................................        X   ........  .........
SOLOMON..................................  ........        X   .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    rules committee rollcall no. 229

       Date: October 25, 1995.
       Measure: House Concurrent Resolution 109, Sense of Congress 
     on Social Security Earnings Test Reform, and H.R. 2491, The 
     Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995.
       Motion By: Mr. Frost.
       Summary of Motion: No. 39.
       Results: Rejected, 4 to 8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Vote by Member                  Yea       Nay     Present 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILLEN..................................  ........        X   .........
DREIER...................................  ........        X   .........
G0SS.....................................  ........        X   .........
LINDER...................................  ........        X   .........
PRYCE....................................  ........        X   .........
DIAZ-BALART..............................  ........  ........  .........
McINNIS..................................  ........        X   .........
WALDHOLTZ................................  ........        X   .........
MOAKLEY..................................        X   ........  .........
BEILENSON................................        X   ........  .........
FROST....................................        X   ........  .........
HALL.....................................        X   ........  .........
SOLOMON..................................  ........        X   .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page H10857]]

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman of the Committee on Rules, U.S. Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Solomon: Pursuant to authority provided to me 
     by the Committee Report accompanying the Concurrent 
     Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, H. Con. Res. 
     67, I hereby certify the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order by H. Res. 245 would result in a 
     balanced budget by Fiscal Year 2002.
       Section 210(a)(2)(C) of H. Con. Res. 67 authorized the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to certify an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, made in order by the 
     Committee on Rules, consisting of the text of the reported 
     bill, as modified by any amendments necessary to balance the 
     budget and achieve compliance with reconciliation 
     instructions. Section 210(1) further specified that the 
     certification is to be based upon an estimate provided by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
       According to the attached estimate by the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, the substitute as amended by H. 
     Res. 245 would result in the following deficit or surplus 
     levels: $-158 billion in Fiscal Year 1996, $-180 billion in 
     Fiscal Year 1997, $-146 billion in Fiscal Year 1998, $-120 
     billion in Fiscal Year 1999, $-96 billion in Fiscal Year 
     2000, $-40 billion in Fiscal Year 2001, and $+1 billion in 
     Fiscal Year 2002.
       The consideration of H.R. 2491 is an historic step as 
     Congress moves to balance the Federal budget for the first 
     time in over 30 years. The future of our nation depends upon 
     bringing our fiscal affairs in order. It has been an honor 
     for me to participate in this exciting process.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget.
                                                                    ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     reviewed the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
     2491, the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1995, considered as adopted under the terms of the rule 
     providing for further consideration of H.R. 2491. As provided 
     by section 210 of the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 
     (H. Con. Res. 67), CBO has projected the deficits that will 
     result if the substitute is enacted. As specified in section 
     210, these projections use the economic and technical 
     assumptions underlying the budget resolution, assume the 
     level of discretionary spending allowed under the new 
     statutory caps on appropriations that are contained in the 
     substitute, and include changes in outlays and revenues 
     estimated to result from the economic impact of balancing the 
     budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by CBO in its April 
     1995 ``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for 
     Fiscal Year 1996.'' On that basis, CBO projects that 
     enactment of the reconciliation legislation embodied in the 
     substitute would produce a small budget surplus in 2002. The 
     estimated federal spending, revenues and deficits that would 
     occur if the proposal is enacted are shown in Table 1. The 
     resulting differences from CBO's April 1995 baseline are 
     summarized in Table 2, which includes the adjustments to the 
     baseline assumed by the budget resolution. The estimated 
     savings from changes in direct spending and revenues that 
     would result from enactment of each title of the substitute 
     are summarized in Table 3 and described in more detail in an 
     attachment.
       If you wish further details on this projection, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.
       Attachment.

                                                TABLE 1.--PROPOSED HOUSE OUTLAYS, REVENUES, AND DEFICITS                                                
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays:                                                                                                                                                
    Discretionary............................................          536          525          518          517          521          517          516
    Mandatory:                                                                                                                                          
        Medicare\1\..........................................          194          209          217          228          247          266          288
        Medicaid.............................................           97          103          108          112          117          122          127
        Other................................................          501          525          553          583          614          638          671
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................          792          837          878          923          978        1,026        1,086
    Net Interest.............................................          257          260          260          260          258          252          247
      Total outlays..........................................        1,584        1,623        1,656        1,700        1,758        1,795        1,849
Revenues.....................................................        1,426        1,442        1,510        1,580        1,662        1,755        1,849
Deficit......................................................          158          180          146          120           96           40           -1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Medicare benefit payments only. Excludes medicare premiums and graduate medical education spending.                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.                                                                                                                   
Notes.--The fiscal dividend expected to result from balancing the budget is reflected in these figures. Numbers may not add to totals because of        
  rounding.                                                                                                                                             


                                          TABLE 2.--PROPOSED HOUSE BUDGETARY CHANGES FROM CBO'S APRIL BASELINE                                          
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Total 1996-
                                                      1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002         2002   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO April baseline deficit\1\...................          210          230          232          266          299          316          349           NA
Baseline adjustments\2\:                                                                                                                                
    CPI rebenchmarking\3\.......................            0            0            0           -1           -3           -6           -9          -18
    Other adjustments\4\........................            1            1            1            2            2            1            1           10
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................            1            1            1            1           -1           -4           -8           -9
Policy Changes:                                                                                                                                         
    Outlays, discretionary:                                                                                                                             
        Freeze\5\...............................           -8           -9          -12          -35          -55          -75          -96         -289
        Additional savings......................          -10          -22          -29          -26          -22          -26          -28         -162
        Welfare reform\6\.......................            2            2            2            3            3            3            3           19
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................          -16          -28          -38          -58          -74          -98         -120         -432
    Outlays, mandatory:                                                                                                                                 
        Medicare................................           -8          -15          -27          -40          -49          -60          -71         -270
        Medicaid................................           -3           -7          -14          -23          -31          -41          -51         -169
        Other...................................          -14          -22          -22          -27          -29          -29          -31         -174
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................          -25          -44          -63          -89         -109         -130         -153         -614
    Net Interest................................           -2           -5           -9          -16          -27          -41          -60         -161
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total outlays.............................          -42          -77         -111         -164         -210         -269         -333       -1,207
Revenues\7\.....................................           -8           33           38           40           39           39           41          223
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total policy changes......................          -50          -44          -73         -124         -171         -231         -292         -985
Adjustment for fiscal dividend\8\...............           -3           -7          -14          -23          -32          -41          -50         -170
Total adjustments and policy changes............          -52          -50          -86         -146         -204         -276         -350       -1,163
House policy deficit............................          158          180          146          120           96           40           -1           NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Projections assume that discretionary spending is equal to the spending limits that are in effect through 1998 and will increase with inflation after
  1998.                                                                                                                                                 
\2\The budget resolution was based on CBO's April 1995 baseline projections of mandatory spending and revenues, except for a limited number of          
  adjustments.                                                                                                                                          
\3\The budget resolution baseline assumed that the 1998 rebenchmarking of the CPI by the Bureau of Labor Statistics will result in a 0.2 percentage     
  point reduction in the CPI compared with CBO's December 1994 economic projections.                                                                    
\4\The budget resolution baseline made adjustments related to revised accounting of direct student loan costs, expiration of excise taxes dedicated to  
  the Superfund trust fund as provided under current law, the effects of enacted legislation, and technical corrections.                                
\5\Savings from freezing 1996-2002 appropriations at the nominal level appropriated for 1995.                                                           
\6\Increases in statutory caps on discretionary spending to reflect shifts from mandatory spending to discretionary spending embodied in welfare reform 
  provisions included in reconciliation bills. The cap adjustments are specified in Title XX of the bill.                                               
\7\Revenue increases are shown with a negative sign because they reduce the deficit.                                                                    
\8\CBO has estimated that balancing the budget by 2002 would result in lower interest rates and slightly higher real growth that could lower federal    
  interest payments and increase revenues by $170 billion over the fiscal year 1996-2002 period. See Appendix B of CBO's April 1995 report. ``An        
  Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1996.''                                                                               
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.                                                                                                                   
Notes.--NA=not applicable; CPI=consumer price index. Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                 


                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page H10858]]
                                    95TABLE 3.--HOUSE RECONCILIATION MANDATORY SPENDING AND REVENUE CHANGES BY TITLE                                    
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Title                           1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002      1996-2002 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--Agriculture:                                                                                                                                         
    Outlays.....................................         -0.9         -1.9         -1.9         -1.9         -1.9         -2.5         -2.5        -13.3
II--Banking and Financial Services:                                                                                                                     
    Outlays.....................................         -6.4        (\1\)          0.3          0.3          0.2          0.2          0.2         -5.3
    Revenues\2\.................................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
    Deficit.....................................         -6.4        (\1\)          0.3          0.3          0.2          0.2          0.2         -5.3
III--Commerce:                                                                                                                                          
    Outlays.....................................         -0.3         -2.9         -2.7         -4.0         -3.7         -3.2         -1.9        -18.7
IV--Economic and Educational Opportunities:                                                                                                             
    Outlays.....................................         -1.4         -1.1         -1.3         -1.5         -1.6         -1.7         -1.7        -10.2
V--Government Reform and Oversight:                                                                                                                     
    Outlays.....................................         -0.6         -1.0         -1.0         -1.0         -1.0         -1.0         -0.9         -6.5
    Revenues\2\.................................         -0.2         -0.4         -0.6         -0.6         -0.6         -0.6         -0.7         -3.7
    Deficit.....................................         -0.8         -1.4         -1.6         -1.6         -1.6         -1.6         -1.6        -10.2
VI--International Relations:                                                                                                                            
    Outlays.....................................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)         -0.1
VII--Judiciary                                                                                                                                          
    Outlays.....................................          0.0          0.0          0.0         -0.1         -0.1         -0.1         -0.1         -0.5
VIII--National Security:                                                                                                                                
    Outlays.....................................          0.4         -0.6          1.1          0.4          0.3          0.2          0.2          2.1
IX--Resources                                                                                                                                           
    Outlays.....................................         -0.1         -0.9         -0.2         -0.1         -0.6         -0.1         -0.1         -2.1
    Revenues\2\.................................          0.0        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
    Deficit.....................................         -0.1         -0.9         -0.2         -0.1         -0.6         -0.1         -0.1         -2.1
X--Transportation and Infrastructure:                                                                                                                   
    Outlays.....................................        (\1\)         -0.1        (\1\)         -0.6         -0.1         -0.1         -0.1         -0.8
XI--Veterans' Affairs:                                                                                                                                  
    Outlays.....................................         -0.3         -0.3         -0.5         -1.2         -1.4         -1.3         -1.4         -6.4
XII--Ways and Means Trade:                                                                                                                              
    Outlays.....................................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0        (\1\)
    Revenues\2\.................................          0.5          0.3          0.1          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.9
XIII--Ways and Means Revenues:                                                                                                                          
    Outlays.....................................         -0.1         -2.6         -2.8         -2.9         -3.1         -3.2         -3.3        -18.0
    Revenues\2\.................................         -0.6         -1.4         -3.1         -4.0         -4.5         -5.1         -6.1        -24.9
    Deficit.....................................         -0.8         -4.1         -5.9         -6.9         -7.5         -8.3         -9.4        -42.9
XIV--Ways and Means Tax Simplification                                                                                                                  
    Revenues\2\.................................          0.2          0.6          0.9          0.7          0.7          0.8          0.8          4.7
XV--Medicare:                                                                                                                                           
    Outlays:                                                                                                                                            
        Medicare................................         -7.9        -15.1        -26.9        -39.9        -49.2        -59.9        -71.3       -270.2
        Graduate medical education..............          0.0          1.3          1.5          2.3          3.1          3.6          4.0         15.8
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................         -7.9        -13.8        -25.4        -37.6        -46.1        -56.3        -67.3       -254.4
XVI--Transformation of Medicaid:                                                                                                                        
    Outlays.....................................         -2.7         -6.9        -14.3        -22.6        -31.2        -40.8        -50.9       -169.5
XVII--Abolishment of Department of Commerce:                                                                                                            
    Outlays.....................................          0.0        (\1\)          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0        (\1\)
XVIII--Welfare reform:                                                                                                                                  
    Outlays.....................................         -4.3        -13.4        -16.2        -18.4        -21.0        -22.1         25.2        120.6
XIX--Contract with America Tax Cut:                                                                                                                     
    Revenues\2\.................................         -7.8         34.1         40.3         44.3         43.6         43.8         47.2        245.7
XX--Budget Process:                                                                                                                                     
    Outlays.....................................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Totals:                                                                                                                                                 
    Outlays.....................................        -24.7        -45.6        -64.8        -91.2       -111.1       -131.9       -155.0       -624.4
    Revenues\2\.................................         -7.9         33.3         37.6         40.4         39.3         38.8         41.3        222.7
    Deficit.....................................        -32.7        -12.3        -27.2        -50.8        -71.8        -93.1       -113.7       -401.7
Interactive effects:                                                                                                                                    
    Outlays.....................................          0.1          1.4          1.7          1.8          1.9          1.9          2.0         10.6
Totals:                                                                                                                                                 
    Outlays.....................................        -24.7        -44.2        -63.2        -89.5       -109.2       -130.0       -153.0       -613.8
    Revenues....................................         -7.9         33.3         37.6         40.4         39.3         38.8         41.3        222.7
    Deficit.....................................        -32.6        -11.0        -25.6        -49.1        -69.9        -91.2       -111.7      -391.1 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than $50 million.                                                                                                                               
\2\Revenue increases are shown with a negative sign because they reduce the deficit.                                                                    
Note.--Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                                                               
Sources.--Congressional Budget Office; Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                                                     


  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes of debate time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose the rule, and the legislation it 
makes in order--the budget reconciliation bill drafted by the 
Republican leadership.
  The importance of the legislation before us cannot be overstated. It 
is a measure that makes drastic changes in a huge number of Federal 
programs and services; a measure that will directly affect virtually 
every American. Yet the rule for its consideration allows the House to 
consider only one substitute, and one motion to recommit. And, the rule 
limits the remaining time for general debate to just 3 hours, plus 1 
hour for debate on the substitute.
  It is true, as our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
pointed out, that this is a typical rule for a budget reconciliation 
bill. But this is not a typical reconciliation bill; it is not a bill 
that has been developed through the normal reconciliation process but, 
rather, one that has been brought to the House floor through actions of 
the Republican leadership that constitute an extremely serious abuse of 
the legislative process.
  In years past, reconciliation bills were drafted in open committee 
meetings. When committees acted on their reconciliation instructions, 
Members of both parties had the opportunity to debate the issues and 
offer amendments. After committees acted, the Budget Committee reviewed 
and reported the final bill, and after that, the Rules Committee issued 
a rule for its consideration. All this was done in full view of the 
press and the public. In other words, reconciliation bills were the 
products of an open, democratic, deliberative, and accountable process. 
We knew what the bills contained, and who had agreed to the provisions 
in them.
  The bill before us now, however, contains critical changes in 
agriculture programs, in the civil service retirement system, in tax 
policy, in the structure of a Federal department, and other important 
provisions that were not considered by the committees of jurisdiction, 
nor reviewed by the Budget Committee. Some of the provisions were not 
even finalized until last night.
  These portions of the bill were drafted behind the closed doors of 
the Speaker's office, where decisions were also made to drop certain 
provisions from the committee reported version of the bill. Even as the 
Rules Committee was conducting its hearing yesterday--and even as 
general debate on the bill had begun on the floor--decisions were still 
being made by the Republican leadership about the contents of the plan 
we would be asked to vote on today.

[[Page H10859]]

  We find the disregard for the normal legislative process that has 
been demonstrated by this process profoundly disturbing. We believe it 
is a huge injustice to the Members of the House and, far more 
important, to the people we represent.

  And we, the Democratic minority, are not alone in our view of what is 
happening here. A recent editorial in Roll Call described what is going 
on by saying:

       Speaker Newt Gingrich is indisputably providing strong 
     direction for the House, but in the process he and his hand-
     picked leadership are running roughshod over the 
     congressional committee system and depriving minority 
     Democrats, rank-and-file Republicans, and even committee 
     chairmen of the power to shape legislation. The question 
     arises: Is this democracy or rule by politburo?

  That's not a Democratic sympathizer speaking; that's a newspaper that 
was equally, if not more, critical of the way the Democratic Party ran 
the House.
  The point is, the bill before us did not arrive through the typical 
process, and therefore the highly restrictive rule for its 
consideration cannot be justified on the basis of the restrictive rules 
used for reconciliation bills in the past. At the very least, the rule 
for this particular reconciliation bill should provide the House with 
the opportunity to consider amendments to those sections of the bill 
that were drafted outside of the normal committee process.
  We also object to the rule's waiver of clause 5(c) of rule XXI, which 
requires a three-fifths vote for any bill which contains a Federal 
income tax rate increase. That rule, as Members recall, was adopted at 
the beginning of this Congress to make it more difficult to pass an 
income tax rate increase.
  We believe that the Republican reconciliation bill would raise income 
taxes on 8 million American working families because of the bill's 
change in the earned income tax credit. Members on the other side of 
the aisle have tried to assure us that, no, this bill does not raise 
income taxes. If that, in fact, is the case, we see no reason for the 
protection this rule provides against the three-fifths vote requirement 
for a bill that raises income taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, of even greater concern to us than the procedural abuse 
we have seen in this year's reconciliation process is the actual 
legislation that process has produced.
  Many of us applaud the fact that the Republican leadership set a goal 
of 7 years for bringing the Federal budget into balance. But we think 
that this particular plan reaches that goal the wrong way, and that the 
Republican leadership is misleading the American people by justifying 
the drastic spending cuts in their plan as necessary to reach a 
balanced budget. The fact is, it is not necessary to make such extreme 
spending cuts in order to balance the budget, and that will be clearly 
demonstrated by the Stenholm-Orton-Peterson plan that will be offered 
as an alternative to the Republican plan.
  Furthermore, contrary to the rhetoric surrounding the Republican 
plan, the greatest significance of this measure is not its role in 
producing a balanced budget. Of far greater consequence is the fact 
that it will result in a monumental shift of resources from poor and 
middle-income Americans to the wealthiest Americans. It is a cruel, 
meanspirited, and misguided measure that will reward well-to-do 
Americans and special interests, and punish the poor.

  What else but cruel can you consider a measure that provides a tax 
credit worth several hundred dollars per child for families earning 
$200,000, but not for families earning $20,000? That cuts taxes for the 
top 1 percent of earners by an average of $14,000, while raising taxes 
for millions of working families? What is fair about requiring hard-
working, but low-wage American workers to foot the bill for a tax cut 
for doctors and lawyers and corporate executives and--yes--Members of 
Congress?
  What else but meanspirited can you consider a bill that pulls the rug 
out from under working families by cutting not only the earned income 
tax credit, but also Medicaid, food stamps, child care assistance--the 
support that parents working in low-wage jobs need to stay off welfare?
  What else but misguided can you consider a bill that raises the cost 
of student loans--the primary means available to moderate-income 
families to give their children a leg up in life? A bill that 
jeopardizes the retirement security of millions of working Americans by 
allowing corporations to raid workers' pension funds? And yet, at the 
same time, abolishes the alternative minimum tax that ensures that 
profitable corporations are not able to use multiple tax loopholes to 
escape paying taxes?
  What else but wrongheaded can you consider a bill that provides 
special deals for industries that want to use the natural resources 
that belong to all Americans--giveaways of Federal resources for 
mining, timber, ranching, and oil and gas interests? And special deals 
for concessionaires in our national parks, and for ski operators in our 
national forests?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule, for a terrible bill. I urge Members 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' 
on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. GOSS], one of the Members of this House who has done more 
to bring about some fiscal sanity than others that I know and is a 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens 
Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me this time. I did want to underscore some of the points that 
he made in his excellent opening remarks.
  This truly is a momentous day and certainly one of the most 
noteworthy in my short tenure as a member of this body. Before the sun 
sets today, we actually are going to pass a 7-year balanced budget plan 
that wipes out our national deficits and allows us to begin the process 
of paying down our enormous Federal debt. That is a major 
accomplishment and major good news for America.
  We will deliver this product to the American people, because it is 
the right thing to do and because they have asked us to do it. No doubt 
we will continue to hear the words of doom, gloom, and fear from those 
on the other side who are still imprisoned in the status quo. Given the 
dire predictions and the red hot rhetoric we have already heard from 
the naysayers, some people might conclude that this is just about cuts, 
that we are gutting all that is great and good about America, instead 
of what we are really doing, which is excising layers of government fat 
that have grown up over the past 40 years.
  In fact, it may surprise people to know that Federal spending under 
this proposal is actually slated to grow, I said grow, significantly in 
each of the 7 years ahead. In fact, this plan starts with an annual 
Federal spending program of $1.5 trillion and ends with an annual 
spending program that is a full $300 billion more than that. Yet in 
that 7th year, 2002, we will have also balanced the budget.
  Now, how do we do that? It is possible because we are allowing our 
economy to grow. We are creating jobs, opportunities for Americans to 
work, opportunities to expand our economy, while at the same time we 
control the cancerous growth of rampant, runaway Federal spending which 
so many have closed their eyes to for so long.
  Two years ago I stood in staunch opposition to President Clinton's 
budget reconciliation bill, the largest tax hike in history. Three 
years before that I opposed the deal worked out between President Bush 
and congressional Democrats. Both of these budgets had two basic flaws. 
They allowed for continued deficits as far as the eye could see, and 
they raised taxes at a time when we should have been addressing our 
chronic spending problem.

  This year is different. We are eliminating redundant and wasteful 
spending. We are preserving and strengthening our vital health care 
programs, Medicare and Medicaid. We are reforming welfare, and we are 
allowing all Americans to keep more of what they earn by lowering 
taxes. It is their money, not Washington's.
  Mr. Speaker, as one would expect, given a change of this magnitude, 
there have been disagreements on individual items within the package. 
Indeed, 

[[Page H10860]]

there are several elements of this bill that remain troubling to me, 
but I have concluded that the fundamental and overriding interest of 
balancing the Federal books while unshackling the American people from 
the grip of excessive Federal Government far outweighs the drawbacks of 
certain of the items. In fact, Washington does not know it all.
  Mr. Speaker, with all the rhetoric surrounding this debate, I recall 
the words of President Theodore Roosevelt who said, ``Aggressive 
fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords.'' We are 
today engaged in such a noble sport. We are preserving the integrity of 
the U.S. Government and the viability of America for our children, our 
grandchildren, our parents, and ourselves. I am proud of that effort, 
and I obviously support this rule to get us started along this 7-year 
path to balance the budget.
  Notwithstanding the points from my good friend and colleague from 
California, Mr. Beilenson, about management procedures, I believe that 
this is a fair rule and an appropriate rule for the reconciliaton 
budget process, and I certainly think it is fairer than the one we saw 
in the previous year. I urge support for the rule and support for the 
bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], our distinguished friend and the ranking 
Democratic member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, The more I look at this bill, the more horrified I 
become.
  This bill is an enormous collection of heartless attacks on American 
children, senior citizens, and working families.
  And the worst part, the most disappointing aspect of this whole 
horrible collection of mean-spirited cuts--is that they are made in 
order to lower taxes for the very, very rich.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not why we were sent to Congress.
  We were not sent here to cut $270 billion from Medicare on which 40 
million seniors rely; We were not sent here to cut $182 billion from 
Medicaid, a program 4.4 million American children desperately need but 
will not get.
  We were not sent here to cut $54 million from energy assistance for 
working families. And we certainly were not sent here to do all of 
that, in order to parcel out goodies to the very rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I know it is too outrageous to believe but it is true 
without these Medicare cuts, this supposedly balanced budget has an $82 
billion deficit.
  Last week's Medicare vote and this vote are the same thing. Any one 
of my colleagues who votes for this bill is voting to put the squeeze 
on grandmothers, grandfathers, children, and working families, in order 
to give a tax break to the very rich.
  This is an outrageous excuse for a bill and if it becomes law, it 
will mean some very dark days for many Americans.
  This bill, takes from the mouths of babes, from the health care of 
seniors, from the education of students, and gives straight to the 
pockets of the rich.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a new member of the Committee on Rules this year who 
brought wisdom and common sense to our Committee on Rules and our 
Congress, a former judge from Columbus, OH.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this rule. 
Once again, this House faces an historic opportunity to choose between 
the policies of the status quo or to chart a bold new path for the 
future.
  The Democrats argue that we are going too far too fast. Yet many on 
our side of the aisle believe we have not gone nearly far enough. The 
truth is the Republican Congress has worked long and hard to bring us 
to this moment in time when we are about to pass legislation to end 
years of rapidly expanding Government and to start this pendulum 
swinging the other way. Very simply, the bill before us will shift the 
focus of Government from quantity to quality and from spending to 
service.
  Mr. Speaker, our national debt is nearly $5 trillion. It is very hard 
for mere mortals to comprehend $5 trillion. So here is an example 
paraphrased from the Wall Street Journal that can help us understand. 
Let us say Congress will try to pay the $5 trillion national debt by 
putting $1 every second into a special account. If 1 million seconds 
adds up to 12 days, then 1 billion seconds is roughly 32 years. And 1 
trillion seconds is nearly 32,000 years.
  In order to pay off the debt, Congress would have to deposit $1 into 
the account every second for the next 160,000 years. That is more time 
than the amount of time that has passed since the Ice Age.
  As our author of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] told the Committee on Rules yesterday, if you had a business 
which lost a million dollars a day since the time that Christ walked on 
this earth, your business still would be far better off than this 
country is now.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to get this under control. Lately many of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle have accused Republicans of 
being heartless, saying our budget is an attack on children. Yet a 
child born today will have to pay $187,000 in his or her lifetime just 
to pay the interest on this national debt.
  So I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is so compassionate about spending money 
we simply do not have and then saddling our children and grandchildren 
with this enormous debt? Is it compassionate to condemn our children to 
a lower standard of living than we enjoy? The answer is clearly no. 
Further, it simply is arrogant to believe that Washington has a 
monopoly on compassion, that only Federal solutions can address 
problems on the State and local level.
  Our plan, Mr. Speaker, suggests that there is more compassion at the 
level of local government with our Governors, with our mayors, with our 
city councils than there is in nameless, faceless Federal bureaucrats.
  In closing, let me say that House Resolution 245 is a responsible 
rule. I urge my colleagues to adopt it and the underlying legislation 
so that we can begin to swing the pendulum back to an era of growth, 
productivity and financial security for our children and for future 
generations.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, when the budget resolution upon which today's 
bill is being based was considered by this body, I stood in this very 
spot to challenge it based on House rule XXI, which requires a three-
fifths vote of the House in order to increase taxes, a measure that was 
supported by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and a rule that I wholeheartedly supported 
as a freshman on my first day here.
  Speaker Gingrich ruled me out of order by saying that the budget was 
a resolution, not a bill. He advised me to study the rules. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, I have studied the rules. I find that the issue before us 
today is a bill, and it should have this rule applied to it. But now I 
am told that after midnight, last night, today's debate was arranged in 
such a way that, although Speaker Gingrich said on January 4 that no 
tax increase would take place without a three-fifths majority, that 
this bill would be exempt from that rule. If it is a tax increase, it 
should require a three-fifths majority; and, if the rule is being 
waived today, it must be a tax increase.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our Republican budget chairman is correct. 
The pendulum of power has swung. It has swung smack-dab into the faces 
of American seniors, smack-dab into the faces of students trying to get 
a full education and into the faces of working Americans who want to 
claim a share of the American dream.
  They give us a new sick tax for the old. They raise new barriers to 
education for the young and more taxes on working Americans. That is 
why we call this Republican bill wreckonciliation; it is a wreck for 
working American families.

[[Page H10861]]

  Of course, they spell it different. They leave off the W. They call 
it reconciliation, like after a divorce. But you know, they are still 
so divorced from reality in America, the reality of what it is to work 
hard, to try to make ends meet for a family, the reality of what it is 
to survive on a Social Security check and rely on America, so divorced 
from a reality that their spokesman, our Republican colleague from 
North Carolina, thinks $183,000 is lower middle class.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I sit here in amazement when I listen to this. We are 
supposed to be responsible people. When you look at what we are doing 
with this budget, my colleagues, we are not cutting WIC. We are not 
cutting Head Start. We are not cutting Green Thumb. We are not cutting 
the RSV programs which are such good programs. We are not cutting 
school lunch programs.
  Let me tell Members what we are doing. We are reconstructing this 
Federal Government. Do Members know how we are doing it? We are doing 
it the same way that business and industry are forced to do it in order 
to survive, to make a profit.
  I want Members to listen to some of these words because if they read 
these bills here, this is what this contains. This does not contain 
cuts for the truly needy. My colleagues will not hear me mention one 
word about it.
  This is what we are doing. We are merging. Ever hear that word 
before? We are consolidating. We are eliminating. We are privatizing. 
We are defunding, and we are outright abolishing dozens of antiquated, 
duplicative, and unnecessary bureaus, agencies, administrations, 
offices, commissions, and for the first time whole departments.
  Do my colleagues know who is squealing like stuck pigs? It is the 
bureaucrats inside Washington, the taxers, the spenders, the 
regulators. These are the people that are being cut, and we are going 
to balance this budget no matter what because what is compassionate 
about piling this kind of irresponsible debt on our children and our 
grandchildren?
  Mr. Speaker, you have grandchildren. I have four of them now. We are 
going to have some fiscal sanity in this body starting here today. This 
bill is going to pass with overwhelming support in this body, and we 
will bring about fiscal sanity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, after all the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules has said about merging and acquisition and all that, 
they are cutting. They are not only cutting; they are gutting.
  Balancing the budget is about balancing sacrifice. There is no 
balance of sacrifice here. People get to keep their own money, I hear. 
Let me tell you who is keeping their own money. Earn over $100,000 a 
year, you are about 1 percent of the population, you get to keep 
$2,400. Earn $350,000, you get to keep $14,000.
  If you are in West Virginia and you are one of the 85 percent of our 
State that earns less than $50,000, you will pay $530 more out of 
pocket either in increased taxes or lost program benefits such as 
student loans and Medicare. Why is it that Medicare has to be cut $270 
billion, when the Medicare trustees themselves, the stewards of the 
fund, say only $90 billion is sufficient? The reason is for a tax cut, 
a tax cut that goes to the wealthiest individuals in this country.
  We are talking about balancing budgets. But we are not talking here 
about balancing sacrifice. West Virginians say we all know we have to 
come to the table. We all know we have to give something. But when 85 
percent of the people are having to give directly out of their pockets, 
directly out of their middle class and middle income abilities to make 
sure that those over $100,000 are able to keep far more of their money, 
that is not balanced sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, we must, oppose this resolution and this bill. This is 
about tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals, not about balancing 
budgets.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a moment to point 
out that the previous speaker who opposes tax relief in this bill 
opposes tax relief for 155,000 working families in his home State of 
West Virginia, including 13,392 families who would have their entire 
Federal income tax burden eliminated by the budget bill that he opposes 
today.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader does not point out that he 
raises taxes on 70,000 working lower income West Virginians, those 
under $24,000 a year. He does not point out that the tax bill he 
supported 2 years ago would have greatly given the wealthiest a tax 
break while the lowest income West Virginians would have received a tax 
increase. He does not point out that he is taking money out of 300,000 
senior West Virginians, 400,000 of those on Medicaid, 700,000 total.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, nor does he point out that every Texas 
grandmother and young child is worth half as much as one in New York 
under his bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker. I rise to reluctantly oppose the rule. I am 
reluctant because at least we will have an opportunity to present the 
coalition budget. But I oppose the rule because we only get 30 minutes 
to explain it, which simply is not enough. So let me take 45 minutes to 
point out one change in our budget.
  We assume a change in the Consumer Price Index. The Consumer Price 
Index is an assumption, an economic assumption. Virtually all of the 
economists, including Alan Greenspan, have indicated that the CPI 
formula overstates inflation by up to a percentage point. Ours is not 
the only budget to make this assumption or make this change. In the 
Republican budget originally there was a six-tenths of a percentage 
change. There is now a two-tenths of a percentage change.
  Let me simply say, I hope that we can really debate issues and we 
will not be attacked as raising taxes or cutting Social Security as a 
result of this. We have got virtually all of the Republicans on record 
who spoke in the debate of the original resolution saying that this is 
not any such tax increase. It is simply an economic formula change. I 
hope we will not get into that.
  The Speaker has indicated that he in fact would support such a change 
if the President would, but somebody has got to step forward and 
propose it. We are doing that.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 minute to our friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the words of the great 
movie ``Cool Hand Luke,'' what we have here is a failure to 
communicate.
  We have Republicans accusing Democrats of being stuck in the old FDR 
policies, but the truth of the matter is, it is the Republicans that 
are stuck in the FDR era. Anybody that has benefited in any way from 
Government spending is the target of their cuts.
  They go about providing a phenomenal tax cut to the richest people in 
this country, providing literally $20,000 a year to people with incomes 
above $350,000 and, at the same time, go about raising taxes on the 
some of the poorest people and the working families of this country. 
They cut off student loans. They go after the nursing home standards. 
They go after a $450 billion cut on Medicare and the Medicaid and 
senior citizens of this country.
  Why not ask everybody to participate? Why increase the defense 
spending this year? Why provide a tax cut to the wealthiest people in 
the country? Why not ask corporate America to participate instead of 
lavishing on corporate American additional tax bennies? Why not ask us 
to stand up to Gallo Wine, to stand up to McDonald's hamburgers, to 
stand up to the mining 

[[Page H10862]]

industry, the lumber industry, and all of the industries that have so 
many benefits that are sprinkled throughout this bill?
  Let us come up with a balanced budget but let us do it with equity 
and equanimity in terms of this country's policies.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker. I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] a member of the Committee on 
Rules from Claremont, CA.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the 30 seconds from the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my chairman, and I 
do so to simply point out that my very good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], who appears to have left the floor here, 
opposes tax relief to 656,736 working families in his State of 
Massachusetts including 77,225 families who would have their entire 
Federal tax burden eliminated under the budget bill that he is opposing 
today, and I think it is a sad commentary.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to tell the 
truth, and I appreciate the gentleman from California, my Republican 
colleague's unwavering support of $270 billion in Medicare cuts, but I 
am not sure if he realizes that 1,200 families in his district will be 
cut off the earned income tax credit and will be paying more taxes or 
not getting the benefit of the earned income tax credit by this budget 
reconciliation proposal.
  Since, I have come this morning to the part of the truth squad, I 
know my Republican colleagues realize what the Budget Reconciliation 
Act means to Americans. It means they are going to be locked up and 
hauled off to jail as this picture reflects of a senior citizen in 
handcuffs taken away from the one Republican held hearing on Medicare. 
That is what happened in the U.S. Congress when someone came, an 
elderly citizen, to protest the Medicare cuts. The truth should be told 
on how severe these cuts will be on seniors, working families, 
children, and our youth.
  We do not have a budget deficit problem which has been misrepresented 
by the Republican majority. What we have is a U.S. budget deficit that 
has fallen for the last three years. From a high of almost $300 billion 
to much lower and it is going down every year. We have the best economy 
in the Western World. Other nations, like Japan and Germany, are 
wondering how we do it. We have the lowest unemployment, but, as my 
colleagues know, what we need in America is for working men and women, 
to have higher incomes, we need to make sure Medicare is in place and 
we certainly do not need $270 billion in tax cuts, eliminating student 
loans and health care for our children. We need student loans for our 
children. We need health care through Medicare and Medicaid. This 
budget can be balanced with cuts that do not hurt working men and 
women.
  This is what is happening to the American people. Stop the untruths, 
this debate today should be on how this budget should be for America 
not against America.
  My Speaker, I add quotes from the following article for the Record:

                 U.S. Budget Deficit Falls For 3d Year

                           (By John M. Berry)

       The deficit hit a record $290 billion in fiscal 1992 before 
     dropping to $255 billion in 1993 and $203 billion in 1994. 
     Strong economic growth as well as the spending cuts and tax 
     increases in Clinton's 1993 legislation have been responsible 
     for bringing the deficit to its lowest level since 1989.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman, once again for being 
extraordinarily generous with his time, and I would like to simply 
point out that the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], my friend, 
in opposing this bill is opposing tax relief to 2,016,767 Texans 
including 285,572 hard-working Texans who will be taken completely off 
the Federal income tax roll, and it is a very sad commentary on the 
representation made.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] for his dutiful comment on my representation. Let say to 
him that I am proud of my representation because I know that the people 
in Texas will lose $24 million in Medicare over 7 years by this cut. 
Texas will see over 200,000 children lose medicaid coverage. Many of 
our Texas students who get student loans will also not get those 
student loans. Local health services for those using the Harris County 
Hospital District and those in need of mental health services being 
lost! And let me tell my Republican colleagues it is more important for 
me to stand for my constituents. They will be hurt by this budget 
reconciliation bill. This is an absolute travesty.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that in the 
gentleman from California's district 22,750 taxpayers will see their 
taxes increased under this proposal.
  Basically what we are seeing here are huge cuts in Medicare/Medicaid 
and other programs for middle-income Americans and low-income Americans 
in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. I wanted to just talk 
briefly about those low-income seniors, mostly windows, which were 
discussed last week on the Medicare bill, and how they are going to be 
negatively impacted by this Medicaid bill and the refusal of the 
committee on Rules to include a provision, an amendment, today that 
would have protected them.
  Right now those seniors who are eligible for Medicaid have Medicaid 
pay for their part B premium under Medicare which means that that $46 
per month, which will go up to and double under the Republican proposal 
to almost $90 per month that these low-income seniors have to pay in 
order to get their part B Medicare premium, that pays for their 
doctor's bill. Right now that is paid for by Medicaid, but this bill 
would eliminate that guarantee for those people, for those millions of 
widows and other low-income seniors, who right now have their doctor 
bills and their doctor benefits paid for by Medicaid.
  Mr. Speaker, I went before the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I 
asked that that amendment be considered that would provide that 
guarantee, and we were denied that even though last week on the floor 
of this House at the conclusion of the Medicare debate the Speaker, 
Speaker Gingrich, said that this legislation was going to provide that 
guarantee for those widows and for those low-income seniors. Mr. 
Speaker, I want all my colleagues to know that there is no guarantee in 
this bill for those individuals, particularly those widows. The Speaker 
said that he was going to provide the guarantee. There is no guarantee. 
When we went before the Committee On Rules and asked that that be 
placed in order today, we were told, no, it would not be considered.
  I think it is really terrible that in a context where it is suggested 
and it is being implemented that all these major tax cuts for wealthy 
Americans and those low-income seniors will not have their physician's 
bills paid under this legislation.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today's historic vote will have a profound 
impact on the people we were sent here to represent. As the debate 
draws to a close, Members must stand and be counted on a fundamental 
question, will we provide lavish tax breaks for wealthy people and for 
multinational corporations or will we protect Medicare for America's 
seniors. The Gingrich plan that the House will vote on today is a 
shameful payoff for the rich and well-connected special interests paid 
for by a $270 billion raid on Medicare, and the American people know 
it.
  Thirty years ago another Congress took another historic vote to 
create a health care system for our Nation's seniors. Not a single 
Republican voted for that creation of Medicare, including the majority 
leader of the other body, and yesterday he bragged of that 

[[Page H10863]]

vote saying that we knew it would not work.
  On this side of the street Speaker Gingrich joined the trashing of 
Medicare, and on Tuesday he revealed the real GOP plan to destroy 
Medicare. Speaker Gingrich said that we did not get rid of it in the 
first round because we do not think that that is politically smart, and 
he further said that we believe that it will, Medicare will, wither on 
the vine.
  Mr. Speaker, those comments to that extent are sour grapes for 
seniors in this country.
  Today Republicans are closing in on their 30-year goal to end 
Medicare, but while Republican leaders say that Medicare does not work, 
America's seniors know that it does work, and for 30 years it has 
worked. It has stood for generations as a sacred compact between our 
Government and our seniors. It represents a core value system that has 
made this country great. It embodies the principle that citizens who 
work hard all their lives, raise their children, pay their bills, and 
play by the rules will not be thrown out onto the street in their 
sunset years.
  This budget has nothing to do with saving Medicare or with paying off 
our debt. It has everything to do with tax cuts for the rich, and 
health care for the seniors is an easy target. When the bells sound for 
Members to record their votes, I hope my colleagues will put the 
American people before the special interests. The American people 
deserve no less.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, it pains me to get up here and have to talk 
about this subject, but it needs to be said.
  I served here in the House in 1965 when Mr. Dole voted against 
Medicare. I saw him do it, I heard him do it, and it pains me to hear 
that Speaker Gingrich now says, yes, we have a plan to get rid of 
Medicare, but we cannot do it right now because, if we do, the seniors 
will get mad at us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell the seniors this. This bill contains the 
Medicare cuts. The bill contains the end of Medicare. Let me tell the 
seniors where it is in this bill. It is in the fail-safe device that 
the Republicans put in this Medicare bill. It is tucked in their where 
we cannot see. We do not know it is going to hit us, but it requires 
the Secretary of HEW to make the cuts in Medicare, particularly in the 
fee-for-service part of Medicare, if all of their wonderful, dreamy 
goals are not met to cut $270 billion out of Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, it is all in this bill today, and Members of Congress 
should realize that when they vote for this today, particularly 
Republican Members of Congress ought to realize, that when they vote on 
this today, and listen to me, Mr. Solomon, listen to me, listen to me:
  When you vote for this today, you're voting to end Medicare. You're 
voting to end Medicare. Don't be hoodwinked. It is in your proposal. It 
is in there in the fail-safe device that will put an end to Medicare, 
and the Gingrich-Dole plan to end Medicare is in this vote today.
  This is a serious, serious matter. This is not just about balancing 
the budget. This is putting an end, this proposal that Dole and 
Gingrich have cooked up, to get rid of Medicare.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Loveland, CO [Mr. Allard], a very distinguished Member of this body.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, the 104th Congress will make history. 
We will enact a 7-year program that will balance the Federal budget for 
the first time in 33 years. For far too long, the Federal Government 
has lived too well. It has done so at the expense of hard-working 
Americans.
  Deficits became a way of life for the Federal Government in the 
1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. Unfortunately, they have continued into the 
1990's. This plan marks a fundamental departure from the past by 
finally putting Uncle Sam on a diet.
  This new Congress has kept its commitment to our children and 
grandchildren. We said we would balance the budget, and we will do it.
  Last spring, defenders of the status quo defeated a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. This was a setback, and many observers felt 
that Republicans would then simply abandon the hard work of actually 
balancing the budget. The skeptics were wrong. They misjudged our 
resolve.
  Those of us elected to Congress in recent years have been 
particularly committed to changing the way the Federal Government does 
business. For years, as a veterinarian, small business owner, and State 
legislator, I watched one Congress after another squander our 
children's economic future. I grew sick of it.
  Even when the American people elected Ronald Reagan as President in 
two successive landslides, the Congress ignored his desire to slow the 
growth of Federal spending. President Reagan was fond of saying that 
``we could say they [Congress] spend money like drunken sailors, but 
that would be unfair to drunken sailors.'' At least ``the sailors are 
spending their own money.''
  When I ran for Congress in 1990, I made one principle commitment to 
the people of Colorado, I would do everything I could to balance the 
Federal budget. That is why I am so proud to stand here today and cast 
what will surely be one of the most important votes I will ever cast.
  Judging by the rhetoric of those who oppose this plan one might get 
the impression that it contains devastating cuts. This charge indicates 
how far removed from reality the defenders of deficits have drifted. 
This budget does not cut spending at all, it simply slows the rate of 
increase.
  Let me review some very important numbers. Over the last 7 years 
Federal spending totaled $9.5 trillion. Over the 7 years of this 
balanced budget plan, 1996-2002, the Federal Government will spend a 
total of over $12 trillion. Where I come from that is an increase, and 
it is a very substantial one.
  Similarly, for those who seem to think the family and business tax 
cuts are excessive, I point out that over the last 7 years total 
Federal tax receipts were just under $8 trillion, while over the next 7 
years Federal tax receipts will total $11.2 trillion. That also is an 
increase. In fact, our tax cut reduces projected tax receipts over the 
next 7 years by only 2 percent. That's right, 2 percent less revenue. 
And we give the money back to the hard-working families who earned it 
in the first place.
  The modest tax cut makes particular sense in light of President 
Clinton's revelation that even he believes the 1993 tax hike was 
excessive.
  It is important to keep in mind why we must balance the budget. This 
endeavor is about much more than numbers. It is about the future 
standard of living for our children.
  Much focus has been placed on the supposed pain of the budget 
restraint in our plan. This ignores the vast benefits of balancing the 
budget.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated repeatedly that 
balancing the budget will have a dramatic positive impact on the 
confidence of American families. He has also made clear his belief that 
interest rates would drop significantly. This view is confirmed by a 
recent DRI/McGraw-Hill analysis for the National Association of 
Realtors. According to their data, the average 30-year mortgage will 
drop 2.7 percentage points. On a 30-year $50,000 mortgage at 8\1/4\-
percent interest, families would save over $1,000 a year in interest 
payments. Now that is a real difference in people's lives.
  Similarly, college loans would be much more manageable. A college 
student who borrows $11,000 at 8-percent interest will pay more than 
$2,000 less in total interest payments if rates drop just 2 percent.
  Another example comes with the farm sector. While this budget reduces 
farm payments by $13 billion over 7 years, the Agriculture Committee 
estimates that a 1.5-percent reduction in interest rates will save 
farmers over $15 billion in payments on the outstanding farm debt over 
the next 7 years. And under our Freedom to Farm plan those farmers will 
have much more freedom to plant the crops they wish. They will also run 
their farms with fewer Agriculture Department bureaucrats lending a 
helping hand.
  These are just a few examples of how lower interest rates will help 
families and our economy. Younger generations will benefit from lower 
rates for decades to come.
  But it is not just the young who benefit from this budget, it is also 
seniors. This is a senior friendly budget. We do not touch Social 
Security, and we still increase Medicare spending by 6.5 percent 
a year. In the process we give seniors much greater freedom and control 
over the expenditure of their health care dollars.

  I have been particularly gratified by the large number of letters I 
have received from seniors who say ``just do it!'' They realize that 
some sacrifice will be required of them, but 

[[Page H10864]]

they want the budget balanced, an they know that we strengthen Social 
Security and Medicare by getting our fiscal house in order.
  Last year, we made a contract with America. This balanced budget 
represents the very essence of that contract--a Federal Government that 
will be smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient. We have kept our 
contract, and in so doing we have done more to restore faith in our 
form of government than has been done in many years.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, although I support a balanced budget, 
this Republican bill is too extreme. It takes our country in the wrong 
direction.
  I want to make it clear to the American people exactly what is wrong 
with this bill.
  The Republican bill cuts student loans and forces students and their 
parents to bear the burden of paying even more for a college education.
  It makes excessive cuts to Medicare by increasing the average 
senior's out-of-pocket cost by nearly $400 per year in order to give a 
tax break for the wealthy.
  It makes deep cuts in long term care that will raise the cost for 
nursing homes and will force seniors out of nursing homes, or bankrupt 
their families who are trying to care for their parents and 
grandparents.
  It eliminates the guarantee of Medicaid by threatening the health 
care of over 36 million low-income children, elderly, and disabled 
Americans--our most vulnerable Americans.
  It curbs the quality of nursing homes for elderly Americans by 
repealing the minimum Federal requirements.
  And it cuts the earned income tax credit which provides a modest tax 
break for the lowest-income families. These EITC cuts are a tax 
increase on the lowest-income working families in our country.
  I am pleased that there will be a strong democratic alternative that 
has been praised by the Washington Post as a respectable, disciplined 
alternative that is easily the best horse in the race. It will balance 
the budget by 2002 without the extreme cuts in Medicare, it gets rid of 
any tax cut until the budget is balaned, it preserves the tax credit 
for the working poor, and it does not cut education.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to get our House in order, yet it should be 
done the smart way. The Republican bill only burdens hard-working, 
middle class Americans for the benefit of the wealthy and it must be 
defeated.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, when the Republican Contract With America tax 
act came to the floor a few months ago, I raised the point that that 
was in violation of the law that was passed at the very beginning of 
this session, that any tax increase required a three-fifths vote of 
this Congress. At the time, the Parliamentarian accepted what was 
certainly a specious judgment on the part of the Joint Tax Committee, 
that it did not in fact increase taxes. Subsequently, the 
Parliamentarian has conceded that it did, and in fact should have been 
required to have a three-fifths vote of this Congress in order to pass 
the House.
  What has occurred subsequently, Mr. Speaker, is a recognition that 
much of our tax legislation does in fact violate that law that we chose 
to apply to ourselves, at least the Republican side of the aisle chose 
to apply it, but I think the vast majority of us agree, and what is 
most troubling is that in the biggest bills, for example, in the 
Medicare bill that we just took up, a $270 billion bill, the rule 
waived this three-fifths requirement.
  There are some taxpayers who will in fact pay a 50 percent tax 
increase on the part B Medicare insurance premium. They are not aware 
of that. Most Members in the Congress are not. Certainly, it is in 
gross violation of the three-fifths requirement. That is why it was 
waived.
  Again today, this rule waives that three-fifths requirement. I 
understand the argument that was raised, although I certainly cannot 
agree with it. Essentially what we are saying is it is inconvenient to 
apply it. There are several ways in which we violate the law that we 
earlier enacted. We passed a law that said that we ought to abide by 
the laws we apply to the private sector. Certainly, we ought to comply 
with the laws that we pass for ourselves. We ought not waive it when in 
fact it is inconvenient. That is what we are doing today.
  I could cite several instances where there is, in fact, an income tax 
increase in this bill that in fact does require that there ought to be 
a three-fifths rule in order to pass it. I grant you, we will lose the 
vote on this rule, but the American public needs to know that a rule 
that they thought was going to protect them is being waived as part of 
this rule.
  The biggest one is an income tax increase that will apply to low-
income citizens. I have a long list of every one of the leadership of 
the Republican side of the aisle here saying that this three-fifths 
vote was going to protect all Americans. It did not say ``all Americans 
of higher income,'' it did not say ``all Americans except those of low-
income.'' It said all Americans, but today low-income Americans will 
pay much more in taxes that they cannot afford if we were to pass this 
bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we've heard talk about this budget. But 
there's one thing that supporters of this budget have never understood.
  They've never understood the soul of this Nation.
  They've never understood the poetry that is America.
  The dignity of a senior who doesn't have to beg to see a doctor.
  The grace of a woman with a disability able to live on her own.
  The pride of a student who's earned the grades to go to college.
  The self-respect of a mother working her way out of poverty.
  People who just need a chance. Who just need someone to believe in 
them.
  This budget doesn't reward the best in us. It appeals to the worst in 
us.
  It doesn't reward our best instincts. It tramples our most basic 
values.
  We're told that this is a courageous budget. But there's nothing 
courageous about cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans just to 
pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.
  We're told that Medicare is being saved. But Tuesday, the Senate 
majority leader bragged he was proud of his 1965 vote against Medicare 
saying ``we knew it wouldn't work.''
  And yesterday Speaker Gingrich himself told an insurance group, 
quote, ``We don't get rid of (Medicare) in round one because we don't 
think that that's smart politically but we believe it's going to 
whither on the vine.''
  This budget doesn't save Medicare, it destroys it. And now we have it 
straight from the horse's mouth.
  This budget is nothing but the biggest transfer of wealth from 
seniors and working families to the wealthy in the history of America.
  I say to my Republican friends: don't come to this floor today and 
tell us that this isn't a tax break for the wealthy. Because 106 
members of your own conference once signed a letter that said it was a 
tax break for the wealthy.
  And don't tell us that families will pay less under this budget. 
Because the bipartisan Committee on Taxation says that 7 out of 10 
families will pay the same or more.
  It wasn't a Democrat who said, and I quote, ``this is a tax increase 
on low income workers and the poor which is unconscionable at this 
time.'' That was Jack Kemp--a Republican.
  If this isn't a tax increase then why did you have to wave the rule 
that says all tax increases require a vote of three-fifths of this 
House?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. We may not have the 
votes to beat this rule. We may not have the votes to beat this budget. 
But we do have the votes to sustain a veto.
  I urge my colleagues: Stop this tax increase on families. Stop this 
destruction of Medicare. Stop this war on our kids. And say no to this 
shameful budget.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on Rules and one of 
the most fiscally conservative Members of this body.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago next month I had the 
opportunity, having worked hard in his campaign, to vote for the 
reelection of George Bush. Like most Republicans, I was saddened 

[[Page H10865]]

that he was not reelected, but it really began a new day for me. I was 
elected in 1980 and had served for 12 years with Republican Presidents. 
I was ready to take on this new experience of serving with a Member of 
the opposing political party down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  A few weeks after the election I wrote on Op-Ed piece in the Los 
Angeles Times. The L.A. Times has been held up here this morning. In 
that piece I talked about the fact that if Bill Clinton remained a new 
kind of Democrat, as he said he was throughout his campaign, I would do 
everything that I possibly could to support him.
  In fact, throughout his campaign, remember, he talked about a 
balanced budget. That is exactly what we are pursuing with this 
legislation. He talked about health care reform. We are going at it a 
slightly different way than he probably had envisaged in his campaign 
in dealing with Medicare, but he nonetheless did talk about health care 
reform. He talked about welfare reform, individual initiative, and 
responsibility. That is exactly what we are working on in this 
legislation.
  He also talked about the need for us to move ahead with reducing the 
tax burden on middle-income working Americans. We know that 75 percent 
of the tax reduction in this package goes to people earning less than 
$60,000 a year. He also talked about reducing the capital gains tax 
rate. Why? Because he knew that encouraging savings and investment and 
productivity would be key to economic growth.
  It seems to me that, as we look at these items, along with his desire 
to reduce the regulatory burden that he outlined in his campaign, we, 
with this reconciliation package, are in fact helping him keep his 
campaign promises of 1992.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that while the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and I were yesterday 
in the Committee on Rules saying ``Gosh, if you look at the fact that 
over the next 7 years we are going to see a 24-percent increase, a 24-
percent increase in the level of Federal spending,'' that gives some of 
us a little concern. What it does is it shows that we are willing to 
recognize that there is a Democrat in the White House, there are 
Democrats in both Houses of Congress, and we are trying to do this in a 
bipartisan way.
  Tragically, rather than recognizing that it is a 24-percent increase, 
all they do is describe it as draconian cuts. We are working to 
protect, preserve, and strengthen the Medicare system, contrary to 
anything that has been said on the other side of the aisle. Actually, 
this package does just that.
  One of the great concerns in my State of California happens to be the 
issue of illegal immigration. While we are working toward a balanced 
budget we are actually including three times as much as the President 
does in his budget to deal with the issue of illegal immigration.
  Reimbursement for Medicaid. We also, in this package, are looking at 
reimbursement to the States for the incarceration of illegals. This 
rule will deal with that issue, the Bliley amendment.
  It seems to me that we have a great responsibility as Members of 
Congress to try to come together in a bipartisan way. I am very happy 
to say that our party does have the majority that we need to pass this 
very important measure, so we can get on that glidepath toward a 
balanced budget, so we can in fact reduce the tax burden on working 
Americans, and so we can, as a byproduct of that, decrease interest 
rates and put into place the kind of government that the American 
people desperately want.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule, and an ``aye'' vote 
for the reconciliation package.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say first of all to my friend, 
the gentleman from California, that 22,750 working families in his own 
district will have their taxes raised by this bill that they are so 
strongly supporting.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question. If the previous 
question is defeated we shall offer an amendment which would do two 
things: Strike the increase on taxes on 8 million American working 
families that the bill causes by cutting the earned income tax credit; 
and it would, second, strike the provision in the rule waiving the 
requirement for a three-fifths vote on any measure carrying a Federal 
income tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I include our amendment for the Record, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on the previous question.
  The amendment referred to is as follows:

       On page 3, lines 1 and 2, strike ``modified by the 
     amendments printed in the report'' and insert ``modified by 
     the amendments printed in section 3 of this resolution and in 
     the report''.
       On page 4, lines 7 through 9, strike ``Clause 5(c) of rule 
     XXI shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or 
     conference reports thereon.''
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 3. Strike sections 13701 and 13702 (relating to 
     earned income tax credit) and redesignate succeeding sections 
     accordingly.''

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just have sat here for an hour in total 
amazement, because I have heard speaker after speaker after speaker 
after speaker stand up and say ``We need to spend more money here, we 
need to spend more money there.'' Mr. Speaker, we have been spending 
more money here and more money there for years and years. We have just 
about ruined this country.
  It means so much to young people today to be able to have a job and 
to be able to take home enough pay to save a little bit of money each 
week in order to accumulate a downpayment on a home, and then to have 
enough money in their take home pay to meet a mortgage, and then to 
have children. That is what I did with my family many years ago. We had 
five children almost right in a row, and then we had to educate them 
all and put them in college at one time, but we were able to accumulate 
a little bit of money in order to buy that home and to educate those 
children. Today, they cannot do that, because the Government takes so 
much money out of their pocket. I hear that we are cutting this budget.
  When some of our colleagues were going to the Speaker, the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and complaining that we were cutting too 
much, or they wanted to spend more here, I went to him and said ``Mr. 
Speaker, I don't think we are cutting enough. We are going to spend $3 
trillion more over the next 7 years than we spent in the last 7 years. 
That is an increase in spending almost across the board. It is not 
enough.''

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, it is a giant step in the right 
direction.
  We have a $5 trillion debt today, and that costs the taxpayers $250 
billion in interest just to pay the Netherlands and Great Britain and 
the foreign countries that hold our debt, $250 billion that we cannot 
use to spend on truly needed programs. When President Clinton gave us a 
budget this year, it called for $1 additional trillion added to the 
national debt. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues what that would have 
done to that interest payment. It would have increased it by another 
$100 billion.
  God forbid in inflation had set back in like it did in the late 
1970's under President Jimmy Carter at 10 and 11 and 12 percent. That 
interest payment annually would have grown to $600 billion. Every time 
you spend more money on interest, you have less money to help the truly 
needy.
  The fiscally responsible thing to do is to support this rule and 
support this bill. We have to do it for the future of this country, and 
I urge support for the rule and the bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for a 
number of reasons.
  This rule would send to the floor provisions which increase payroll 
taxes on Federal employees and increase agency pension costs which have 
never been reported by any committee. It does so for one simple reason: 
to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.

[[Page H10866]]

  You can forget all of our chairman's talk about shoring up the fiscal 
stability of the Federal retirement system. Both the General Accounting 
Office and the Congressional Research Service have confirmed that the 
system is sound and that it will always have sufficient assets to cover 
benefit payments to future and current retirees. There is no retirement 
crisis. These increases are unnecessary.
  With respect to the Department of Commerce, the Republican leadership 
has chosen to ignore the work of at least five committees that marked-
up this legislation. By doing so, the leadership also trashed the rules 
and procedures which are in place to ensure that this body functions as 
a democratic institution.
  I find it disingenuous that the Republican leadership abolishes the 
Minority Business Development Agency. They are still funding the Market 
Promotion Program to promote hamburgers overseas, but they abolish the 
only agency willing to help minority-owned business get access to 
markets.
  Third, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose any effort to include the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act as part of reconciliation. This is a 
violation of committee procedure, and a violation of good faith.
  Take my word for it: Members on both sides will regret passing this 
bill that takes money from the checks of poor Social Security 
recipients, and requires our elderly constituents to use automatic 
funds transfers at a bank to collect their Social Security.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This budget includes many 
provisions that harm hardworking Americans. Several of these provisions 
do not belong in reconciliation. They deserve a separate vote. The 
House should have a conversation on these provisions.
  An example of these provisions is the earned income tax credit 
[EITC]. The EITC will be drastically cut. The incentive to get off 
welfare and to work will be gutted. Jack Kemp testified on October 19 
before the Senate Small Business Committee and stated

       ``I hope you guys do not go too far on removing the EITC 
     because that is a tax increase on low income workers and the 
     poor which is unconscionable at this time.''

  Another example is the corporate pension reversion provision. I went 
to the Rules Committee with several of my colleagues and requested that 
we have a separate debate on this provision. We were denied. 
Corporations should not be allowed to raid pension funds.
  There are many provisions in this budget that are unconscionable. 
Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that we 
can be proud to present to the people we represent.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The gentleman will 
state it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the rule that we are about 
to vote on waives the requirement of a 60-percent majority for a bill 
carrying an income tax rate increase?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MORAN. On April 5, more than 6 months ago, I came to this well 
and raised a point of order on a provision of the Contract With America 
Tax Relief Act. It was H.R. 1215 that repealed section 1(h) of the 
Internal Revenue Code affecting the maximum rate for long-term capital 
gains.
  While the intent of this provision was to lower the capital gains 
rate, it actually increased the tax rate on the sale of certain small 
business stocks from 14 percent under current law to 19.8 percent. At 
that time, the Speaker ruled that this tax increase was not subject to 
the three-fifth rule.
  In a June 12 letter, however, from House Parliamentarican Charles 
Johnson, it appears that the ruling was made in error, and the original 
point of order should have been sustained.
  Mr. Speaker, am I correct in my summation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Traditionally, the Chair does not rule on 
hypothetical questions or rule in advance on questions not yet 
presented. The Chair so responded to a parliamentary inquiry on October 
19 during the consideration of a special order waiving the precise rule 
proposed to be waived by the pending special order. In other words, the 
Chair will not presume to respond to a question that is not presented 
as a matter in which the Chair might be required to hear argument and 
render a decision.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry then.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MORAN. Is it possible to waive this rule by a simple majority 
which was advertised by its sponsors as requiring a 60-percent majority 
for income tax rate increases, or does this rule need a 60-percent 
majority for its adoption?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Adoption of this rule only requires a 
majority vote.
  Mr. MORAN. Despite the fact that it is waiving a rule that required a 
60-percent majority?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MORAN. Is it true that the bill before us today contains other 
tax increases that would make this bill subject to a three-fifths vote?
  These additional taxes include a 50-percent tax penalty on Medicare-
plus medical savings accounts withdrawals for any purpose other than 
medical care.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order. The gentleman is making a 
speech.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am explaining the parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot rule on a bill that is not 
yet before the House.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry applies to the rule 
that is before us and is about to be voted on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has already ruled on that.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am itemizing six tax rate increases that 
should have required a three-fifths vote, and I want to clarify that it 
would trigger a three-fifths vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would point out that what the 
gentleman is referring to may be in a bill that is not yet before the 
body, and the Chair cannot rule on that until it is before the body, 
and the Chair has already ruled on the matter before us.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, if I may further clarify my intent, this is 
establishing a precedent.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order. This is not a parliamentary 
inquiry. Let us get on with it. Come on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of this rule will waive the 
rule that the gentleman is currently citing. The gentleman's questions 
are hypothetical at this point.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the very 
real six tax increases that are contained in this bill be put into the 
Record at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the supermajority, the alleged taxpayer 
protection provision rule that is being suspended here the same rule 
that was suspended last week in the Medicare debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just cited that it is clause 
5(c) of rule XXI that is being waived.
  Mr. DOGGETT. So it was waived last week and waived this week.
  Mr. Speaker, is this supermajority protection for taxpayers as 
alleged in permanent suspension, or will it ever be applied?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a correct parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from New York, Mr. 
Solomon, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, if he understands that 
I was only attempting to put information into the Record.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the previous question has been moved. If 
the gentleman wants to do it during the debate on the bill, that is one 
thing, but we have moved the previous question and we want to get on 
with the business. The gentleman knows that.

[[Page H10867]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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.
  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 agreeing to the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 191, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 738]

                               YEAS--228

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     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
     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
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     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
     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
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     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
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Crane
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Greenwood
     McIntosh
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Sisisky
     Talent
     Towns
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1112

  Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. DeLAY, HEINEMAN, and GORDON 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. Burton of Indiana). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 739]

                               AYES--235

     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
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     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)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     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
     Montgomery
     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
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     
[[Page H10868]]

     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--185

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (FL)
     Crane
     Fields (LA)
     Greenwood
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Sisisky
     Talent
     Towns
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1121

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

                          ____________________