[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11989-H12006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2586, TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE 
                          STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 258

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for 
     a temporary increase in the public debt limit, and for other 
     purposes. The following amendments shall be considered as 
     adopted: (1) the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill; and (2) the 
     amendments specified in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as 
     amended, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; (2) one motion to amend by the chairman of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or his designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be debatable for twenty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; (3) one motion to amend by Representative Walker of 
     Pennsylvania or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be debatable for forty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (4) one motion to recommit, which may include instructions 
     only if offered by the minority leader or his designee. 
     During consideration of the bill, no question shall be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 is a modified closed 
rule providing for the consideration in the House without intervening 
point of order of the bill, H.R. 2586, providing for a temporary 
increase in the public debt limit.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides for the adoption of the 
amendment reported by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
the bill together with four other amendments specified in the Committee 
on Rules report.
  Those amendments include--and Members ought to listen up, if they are 
back in their offices--the amendments include, one that I authored that 
commits the President of the United States and this Congress to enact 
legislation this year that will achieve a balanced budget no later than 
fiscal year 2002. Moreover, my amendment affirms that the Congress will 
not, and this is important, will not enact another increase in the 
public debt limit until the President has signed that balanced budget 
legislation into law.
  The second amendment is one nearly identical to the one that was 
contained in the short-term continuing appropriations resolution. It 
will permit Medicare coverage of certain anticancer oral drug 
treatments for prostate and breast cancer.
  The third amendment adopted by this rule is a habeas corpus or death 
penalty reform provision, taken from the Senate-passed anti-terrorism 
bill, a long overdue change in the now endless appeals system that is 
preventing the execution of those who are convicted murderers.
  The fourth amendment, authored by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Chrysler] and developed by many committees of this House, is 
legislation to eliminate a major Cabinet department, the Department of 
Commerce, the first time that has happened in 40 years.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to those four amendments, the rule makes in 
order consideration of a regulatory reform amendment to be offered by 
the 

[[Page H 11990]]
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. That amendment, which is 
debatable for 40 minutes, is a compromise between already passed House 
and Senate regulatory bills that are aimed at bringing commonsense 
relief to American businesses that are so saddled with bureaucratic red 
tape and needless regulations.
  The rule also allows for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means to offer a manager's amendment, if necessary, debatable for 20 
minutes. It does not waive points of order against the amendment, so it 
must be a germane modification or something already in the bill or a 
motion to strike.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule allows for a motion to recommit which, 
if containing instructions, may only be offered by the minority leader 
or his designee, a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for 
the first time in this Republican 104th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody likes to extend or increase the debt limit, 
especially me. I have not voted for one in 17 years because I resent 
the fiscal irresponsibility of this Congress over all those years. On 
our side especially, we Republicans are committed to ending and 
reversing the spiraling debt that has been piled on our children and 
our grandchildren. That is why we are linking this debt limit extension 
to our commitment made in our contract to balance the budget.
  It is so important to the future of this Nation and its economy, to 
the millions of American workers who have seen their wages being eroded 
and their jobs being eliminated and exported to other countries, to 
ensure the revitalization of our economy based on balancing the Federal 
budget.
  What could be more understandable and essential than this basic 
linkage between the public debt and the need to bring our Federal books 
into balance?
  Mr. Speaker, the President has made overtures in the direction in 
recent months at least in his rhetoric. Now is the time for him to make 
that rhetoric a reality by joining with us in committing to balancing 
the budget within the next 7 years. My amendment in this bill, if 
signed into law, will determine whether the President really is serious 
about balancing the budget. When he ran for President in 1992, then-
Governor Clinton said we could balance the budget in just 5 years. That 
is when he was a candidate for the Presidency, in other words, by 1997, 
or a year after his first term.
  Since he became President, he has backed off that pledge that he made 
to the American people, and he has said, maybe we can do it in 10 
years. Heck of a lot of difference between 5 and 10 years, my 
colleagues. As the 1996 presidential election grew even nearer, he 
said, maybe we can do it in 8 or 9 years. Most recently he indicated 
that, yes, it could be done in 7 years as we had proposed and proved by 
our 7-year balanced budget package recently passed by this House.

                              {time}  1230

  Members of this House, we are now in difficult negotiations to 
reconcile the House- and Senate-passed reconciliation bills. Has the 
President stepped forward to show how he would balance the budget in 7 
years in any way different? No, he has not. I even wrote to the 
President and to the President's Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget back when he was considering the budget resolution earlier 
this year inviting him, the President, to submit an alternative plan 
for balancing the budget in 7 years. We wrote a rule, we put out all of 
the proposals, and all of them balanced the budget in 7 years, even 
from the other side of the aisle, but no budget was presented by this 
President to balance that budget. I indicated in that letter we would 
put his resolution out on this floor and we would have an up-or-down 
vote on it, and I have yet to receive any response whatsoever from Mr. 
Panetta or the President, and, my colleagues, I do not think it was the 
fault of the U.S. Postal Service. We have the best postal service in 
the entire world; the mail went through to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 
But we have yet to receive even a post card in response.
  Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, the time has come to fish or cut 
bait. The sign in front of the White House though still reads ``Gone 
Fishing.'' So come on back, Mr. President, and let us get on with the 
business that the people sent us here to conduct. Let us pass this 
rule, let us pass this bill, and let us pass our budget reconciliation 
bill.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of November 8, 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                 52                 67
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 19                 25
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  6                  8
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 77                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 November 8, 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).         
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).            

[[Page H 11991]]
                                                                                                                
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...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H.Res. 258 (11/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.               



   H.R. 258, Summary of Provisions of Rule for H.R. 2586--Temporary 
                  Increase in the Statutory Debt Limit

       1. Provides a modified closed rule.
       2. Provides for consideration in the House without any 
     intervening point of order.
       3. Provides for the adoption of the amendment recommended 
     by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill 
     and the amendments specified in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution.
       4. Provides for one hour of general debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means.
       5. Provides one motion to amend by the chairman of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or his designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       6. Provides for one motion to amend by Representative 
     Walker of Pennsylvania or his designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       7. Provides one motion to recommit which may include 
     instructions only if offered by the Minority Leader or his 
     designee.
       8. Provides that during the consideration of the bill, no 
     question shall be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.


         summary of amendments modifying the text of h.r. 2586

          (Considered as adopted by the adoption of the rule)

       1. Solomon (NY)--Committing the President and Congress to 
     enacting in calendar year 1995 legislation to achieve a 
     balanced budget, as scored by CBO, by fiscal year 2002, and 
     affirming the intent of Congress not to enact a further 
     increase in the public debt limit until the President has 
     signed such legislation. (Printed in the Rules Committee 
     report on the rule)
       2. Medicare Coverage of Certain Anti-Cancer Drug 
     Treatments. (Printed in the Rules Committee report on the 
     rule)
       3. Habeas Corpus Reform--Text of Senate-passed habeas 
     corpus reform provisions of S. 735, the anti-terrorism bill. 
     (Printed in the Rules Committee report on the rule)
       4. Chrysler (MI)--Compromise language on House-passed 
     provisions from reconciliation legislation dismantling the 
     Department of Commerce. (Printed in the Congressional Record)


     amendment made in order by the rule for separate consideration

       1. Walker (PA)--Compromise between House and Senate 
     regulatory reform legislation (printed in the Congressional 
     Record), non-amendable and debatable for 40 minutes equally 
     divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be relieved and that the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], a member of the Committee on 
Rules, be allowed to manage the remainder of time on this side during 
debate of this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 is a modified 
closed rule which will allow consideration of H.R. 2586, a bill to 
increase temporarily the Federal debt ceiling. As my colleague from New 
York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Solomon, described, this 
rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Ways and Means.
  Under this modified closed rule, only two amendments may be offered. 
One amendment, to be offered by Mr. Walker of Pennsylvania, changes and 
standardizes the way Federal agencies analyze the effect of their 
regulations. In 

[[Page H 11992]]
addition, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means may offer any 
germane amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with reluctance that I oppose my committee on this 
rule. However, my opposition is so deep I feel I have no choice.
  Increasing the debt limit is one of the most solemn tasks that 
Congress must face. The level of the debt ceiling is the amount of 
money that the Federal Government can borrow to pay its debts. As 
Federal borrowing increases, the debt ceiling must be raised.
  Failure to raise the debt ceiling means the Federal Government cannot 
pay its bills. By defaulting on our creditors, we risk driving up the 
cost of borrowing in the future. In 200 years, this Nation has never, 
ever defaulted on its financial obligations. That is a reputation we, 
as a Nation, cannot afford to ruin.
  I want to emphasize that the need to raise the debt ceiling is based 
on spending decisions that have already been made. Now, the bills have 
come due and we must pay our debts.
  There is only one responsible course for this House today: To pass a 
simple, straight-forward bill that raises the debt ceiling to a level 
that will protect the faith and credit of the United States.
  This bill does not do that. This rule does not do that.
  This is what the rule does. It takes a relatively simple bill--that 
is 6 pages long--and adds a controversial, completely irrelevant 218-
page proposal to abolish the Commerce Department.
  It makes in order a floor amendment to add another controversial, and 
also completely irrelevant 112-page proposal to change the way Federal 
agencies issue regulations.
  It also adds yet a third completely irrelevant provision related to 
habeas corpus.
  These provisions have nothing to do with the debt ceiling. These 
provisions have nothing to do with protecting the credit and good name 
of the U.S. Government.
  These provisions are kindly referred to as sweeteners. That is, they 
were added by the Republican leadership to ensure that enough 
Republicans would vote to pass this bill.
  That is profoundly disturbing. As Members of the House, it is our 
duty to cast difficult votes when they are needed for the future of our 
country. Yet the Republican leadership cannot even get its own Members 
to vote for this bill without adding pandering riders.
  And if these three sweeteners are not bad enough, here's the real 
kicker. This rule makes in order a Republican leadership amendment--on 
any germane subject--an amendment that could do almost anything--just 
in case these other sweeteners are not enough.
  In other words, if it turns out at the last minute that the 
Republican leadership has not included enough sweeteners, they can be 
like Monty Hall in ``Let's Make a Deal,'' and throw in a few more 
attractions.
  Vote for the debt ceiling and you get this regulatory reform package 
behind curtain No. 1. And, you get this new habeas corpus behind 
curtain No. 2. And, if that is not enough for your vote, you get this 
mystery amendment behind curtain No. 3.
  To make matters worse, the rule does not make in order important, 
improving amendments to the basic bill.
  The bill is only a short-term extension of the debt ceiling that 
might have to be extended next month. The Democratic members of the 
Rules Committee attempted to make in order responsible amendments by 
Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Payne of Virginia, and Mr. Gekas that would provide 
more time to avoid a default. In each case, we were denied along a 
straight party-line vote.
  The bill also contains unworkable restrictions on the Treasury 
Department's debt management. These are restrictions that have never 
been placed on any President before. Again, in the Rules Committee, we 
tried to strike the restrictions but the Republicans opposed us.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy rhetorical attacks on my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. But this rule is a travesty of legislative 
complexity when the solution begs simplicity. This rule is a highly 
partisan attempt to ram irrelevant, controversial Republican 
initiatives through Congress. This rule gags the opposition. And this 
rule makes a mockery of our responsibility to the American people to 
protect our Nation's financial reputation.
  The Nation needs a simple extension of the debt ceiling now. The task 
before us can be done with a 2-page bill, not a monster packed with 
Republican wish lists.
  Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed of the Rules Committee for producing such a 
rule. I urge defeat of the rule. I urge defeat of the bill.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, and I say this constructively to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], and that is I think that 
his staff needs to do a little more research on his statement that this 
is the first time that the United States has defaulted or could 
possibly default on its debt. That is not true. If my colleague looks 
at the gold clause which occurred in the first year of Franklin 
Roosevelt's Presidency, he will find that the United States did in fact 
default on its debt, and that was upheld by the United States Supreme 
Court, so I think at the onset here to my good colleague across the 
aisle that we need to especially, when we speak to the other body here, 
that we need to be accurate in our historical facts.
  Second of all, I think it is very easy to whine and complain about, 
look, what is on this bill, but I think what my colleague needs to do, 
instead of complaining about the amendments that are on the bill, take 
a look at what those amendments contain, talk about breast cancer, talk 
about prostate cancer. Those are amendments on this bill.
  Let us go further than that, and let us talk about the balanced 
budget. This Government is eating its debt at a rate of about $37 
million an hour. That is what we spend more than we bring in, and, no, 
I am not going to yield. Is it not about time that this Government 
stood up to the plate and said ``We can't do that anymore''? Do my 
colleagues think we are going to get this through if we do not have 
some tough negotiating sessions?
  What my good colleague from across the aisle, and I say this with all 
due respect because I have a great deal of respect for him: what he is 
saying is, ``Let's go into this battle unarmed. Let's let the President 
run this thing the way he wants to run it.'' We have got to have some 
negotiating power on this side of Pennsylvania Avenue. We got to know 
what we are doing here. We got to be willing to go in with some 
strength, and we are not doing it.
  I am not going to yield, but I certainly will yield to this gentleman 
as soon as I am finished, but of course the gentleman has his own time 
as well. But talk about the habeas corpus reform. Americans all across 
this country are crying for reform in death penalty cases in this 
country. We are not going to get it otherwise. We have got to go in 
negotiations with strength.
  Finally, of course the Department of Commerce. I have yet to find 
somebody can really look me in the eye and honestly defend the 
Department of Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis], that I think some of the amendments that he 
talked about of course we have debated on the floor, but we do not even 
know what is in the bill.
  For example, a lot of these amendments came to us right before we 
started the vote last night at about 10:30--quarter to 11, and what 
used to be a six-page bill, a bill that we have always passed on debt 
limit, a very simple bill, where all these amendments were added. As a 
matter of fact, the bill now is over 300 pages. We had an amendment on 
habeas corpus, and nobody, nobody, even came to the Committee on Rules 
and testified on it. There was nobody that even spoke about it. All of 
a sudden we see that as a major amendment that came before us, and 
these amendments continue to add just so much addition, and if the 
gentleman can tell me what is in these bills, what is in these 
amendments? I mean nobody had any idea what was going on last night 
when we passed these amendments to a simple debt-limit extension.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H 11993]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
and would inquire of the gentleman from Colorado, precisely my reason 
for inquiring, if he could explain the Medicare coverage of certain 
anticancer-drug treatments, an issue on which we never had hearings or 
never discussed, and could the gentleman enlighten us as to what 
exactly this amendment is other than the written bill which does not 
describe the bill, or how much it would cost, or why it was in there?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, again to address the comments of the 
gentleman from California or my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall], let us talk about the pages. The gentleman says in the past we 
have only had six pages. In the past we have not had the kind of 
negotiations we are facing right now. I think my colleague over there 
would freely admit that the toughest negotiations we have seen in 
Congress in a long time are going to be coming up in the next couple of 
weeks. We have got a President down there who has promised to veto 
almost everything we send to him. We have got a President who, when he 
ran for office, said he would balance the budget in 5 years. That was 
later changed to 8 years, then 10 years, and then about 2 weeks ago it 
went back to 7 years. These are the kinds of negotiations we are 
dealing with.
  That 300 pages or whatever amount of pages, that is not frivolous 
paper put on there. Those are some pretty tough negotiating points that 
we have got to deal with, and I think it is perfectly in order, 
perfectly in order for us to expect this side of the House, for the 
House as a whole, to go into these negotiations as well armed as 
possible. We have got a lot to lose here. We have got to do something 
about this national deficit.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this is to ask if the gentleman would 
describe that Medicare provision.
  Mr. McINNIS. The gentleman is correct. I am not ignoring the 
gentleman's question. I will, however, have a speaker here who can 
speak a little more profoundly on that issue.
  The gentleman is here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, briefly, what we are allowing to have happen 
in Medicare is for a cancer-fighting drug that is now not permitted 
under Medicare to be taken orally for fighting breast cancer and a 
treatment that is not permitted to be taken orally for fighting 
prostate cancer would now be permitted under the language which is 
included in the bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would ask the 
gentleman, was it considered for the screening of mammography and 
colorectal? Many of these people would be dead by the time they get to 
take this drug, because in our committee the Republicans voted against 
colorectal screening and mammography, which, of course, would negate 
some of these drugs being administered at the point at which it is too 
late.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know under whose time the gentleman 
is speaking, but the fact is what we are putting in the bill right now 
would deal with the question of allowing people to take available 
treatments that, because of the outmoded nature of Medicare at the 
present time, they cannot get onto the prescribed drug list. We are 
going to say flatly that we think that it is high time that Medicare 
gets up to date and allows people to take these treatments which are 
available in the rest of the marketplace.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from the Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], former chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the debt limit is not a political football.
  The debt limit extension is the mechanism by which we make sure this 
country pays its bills. I think that is a very important issue, one 
that should not be trifled with, under any circumstances.
  But today we will vote on a debt limit extension loaded down with 
partisanship. This is a very dangerous gamble on the part of 
congressional Republicans.
  Although I am opposed to raising the debt limit, I recognize it is 
something we must do. If we do not, for the first time in the proud 
history of the United States, we will default on our loans. To some 
that may not sound very real. But let me tell you, this political 
gamble could affect practically everyone. You are gambling with the 
fiscal integrity of the United States. You are gambling with people's 
pension plans. You are gambling with people's mortgages. You are 
gambling with people's payroll deduction plans. The debt limit 
extension is a very serious, far-reaching issue and we owe it to the 
people of this country to put politics aside and act responsibly.
  I urge my colleagues, defeat this rule, let us pass a clean debt 
limit.
  The fiscal integrity of the United States is much too important to be 
sacrificed on the altar of partisanship.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my good colleague and ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules talks about a political gamble. If he wants to talk about a 
political gamble, he had better talk about the $37 million an hour that 
this country spends more than it brings in. The biggest financial 
political gamble of this century is this deficit. This bill is going to 
help us address that.
  If the gentleman thinks we are going to be able to go down to the 
White House and go into that White House unarmed to try and defend 
ourselves or to try and negotiate with that President, he is wrong. We 
have to be prepared for some very tough negotiations. The President is 
a good negotiator. We would be foolish not to go in there as well-
equipped as we could possibly be.
  When we talk about the gamble, let us talk about the overall picture 
of the gamble, what we have to lose in this country if we do not do 
something about this deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], former chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as we so well know, there is only one 
reason we are here today. That is because the Speaker and his party 
have been unable to do the things that their duties require them to do. 
This debate that we are having right now should have been finished in 
August, at the latest, of this year.
  If our constituents want to know what bribery looks like, this is a 
picture of it right here, these 400 pages. Who are they trying to 
bribe? They are trying to bribe their own Republican Members on voting 
for two lines, to strike out a figure for the debt ceiling and insert a 
new figure. All the rest of this bill is pure bribery, nothing else. 
That is all.
  They are not trying to bribe anybody except their own members, their 
own members of their own Republican party to vote for this bill. They 
are not bargaining with us, they are not bargaining with the President, 
because we would tell them this, Mr. Speaker, as we have told you: Do 
the job that you are supposed to do.
  There have to be 13 appropriations bills passed, Mr. Speaker. Two of 
them have become law. Eighty-seven percent of all the money that we are 
talking about is still floating around out there somewhere, because you 
have not been able to get a majority of your people who control this 
place to vote for what you advocate. That is how simple it is.

  Mr. Speaker, there is a way to get admission to the White House. That 
is to pass your budget. You have not passed your budget. Your budget, I 
am on the conference committee on your budget, Mr. Speaker, and you 
have not even called a meeting of the conferees in 2 weeks to do this. 
And you are complaining about the President not inviting you to sit 
down and cut steaks with him?

[[Page H 11994]]

  When you get your act in order, Mr. Speaker, when you get your bills 
passed and you get them down there, then, obviously, the President will 
be in a position to speak and be in a position to negotiate. But he 
cannot negotiate with somebody who does not have a plan, who has not 
done their work, who cannot even get enough people on their own side to 
vote on it without adding all of this garbage, all of this garbage, all 
of this bribery to get a simple debt ceiling passed.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, we have passed debt ceilings, in the time that 
you have been a Member of this body, that were only two or three lines 
long. It is a simple amendment. You strike out one figure and you 
insert another figure. But you cannot get your folks to vote for it. 
You are blaming the President. You were blaming the Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, you are to blame. The Republicans are to blame. They 
cannot get their own House in order. They cannot get a majority to vote 
for their own proposals.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
extraneous material in the Record and that it appear at the end of the 
debate on House Resolution 245 in the permanent Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The material referred to is as follows:

 Republicans Waive Three-Fifths Vote Requirement on Tax Rate Increases 
                                 Again

       The rule for consideration of the reconciliation bill once 
     again waives the new rule (clause 5(c) of rule XXI) requiring 
     a three-fifths vote on any measure carrying a federal income 
     tax rate increase, as did the rule for consideration of the 
     bill cutting Medicare.
       The reconciliation bill raises taxes on millions of 
     American working families by modifying the earned income tax 
     credit. The bill makes those who invest venture capital in 
     qualified jobs-creating small businesses pay a higher rate of 
     federal income tax than they would under existing law. This 
     is the same tax rate increase that provoked an attempt to 
     appeal the ruling of the Chair. The reconciliation bill 
     raises income tax rates in the new Medicare provisions and 
     includes other rate increases within the ambit of the new 
     rule.
       Republicans have backtracked on their promise to use this 
     new rule to restrict tax increases. They have voted for tax 
     hikes on working families and waived the new rule without a 
     second thought.
       Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans promised before last 
     November: if we are elected, we won't raise your taxes. As 
     the Speaker said, ``Those of us who ended up in the majority 
     stood on those steps and signed a contract and here is what 
     it says: `The new Republican majority will . . . require a 
     three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase.' '' 
     (Congressional Record, January 4, 1995, page H6) In fact the 
     early rhetoric extended beyond taxes to encompass all revenue 
     increases. But something funny happened between the time a 
     Republican majority was elected in November and opening day 
     of this session in January. It was a quiet revolution within 
     the Republican conference that led to narrowing the scope of 
     the rules change away from covering all tax increases down to 
     just tax rate increases. Did we say: ``No tax increases?'' 
     Well, we meant, ``No tax rate increases.''
       Republicans made a solemn promise--we won't raise income 
     tax rates without a three-fifths vote; however, (READ THE 
     FINE PRINT) we can raise income taxes, payroll taxes, excise 
     taxes, effective rates, and everything short of statutory 
     rate increases with impunity.
       Even this narrow reading now proves too difficult for 
     Republicans to live with. It took no longer than the Contract 
     with America tax bill to provoke an attempt to further narrow 
     the interpretation of tax rates. Did we really say ANY 
     federal income tax rate increase? Maybe we should limit it 
     further. And if we can't limit it, let's waive it.
       Chairman Solomon for example has suggested that the rule be 
     further narrowed, limiting it to a specific type of bracket 
     rate increase, as he claims was the original intent. There is 
     nothing in the legislative history to support a further 
     narrowing of the rule. The legislative history in fact 
     supports the broadest possible interpretation of the rule 
     since every supporter speaks broadly about the rule touching 
     all tax increases. Here's how Republicans descried their rule 
     change at the time it was adopted:
       Rep. Dick Armey--``House rules will now require a three-
     fifths majority to raise taxes''--Cong Rec H31, Wednesday, 
     January 4.
       Rep. John Boehner--``. . . and we decided to change the 
     rules to require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes''--
     Cong Rec H127, Thursday, January 5.
       Rep. Gerry Solomon--``Mr. Speaker, the tax-and-spend 
     Democrats are at it again. They are suing us Republicans, do 
     you believe it, to overturn our rules change that requires a 
     three-fifths majority vote to raise taxes.
       ``The three-fifths majority vote to raise taxes will stand 
     as a hindrance to any Democrat attempt to foist more taxes on 
     the American people. There ain't going to be any more''--Cong 
     Rec H1469, Thursday, February 9.
       Rep. Joe Barton of Texas--``This country was founded on the 
     principle of no taxation without representation. Today many 
     Americans believe that principle has been violated and that 
     their elected Representatives in Washington have taxed them 
     so that they can spend money on the special big-spending 
     interests in Washington, DC. To correct this said situation 
     the new Republican majority has now introduced section 106 of 
     the rule change package. Section 106 would require a three-
     fifths vote to increase income taxes''--Cong Rec H70, 
     Wednesday, January 4.
       Rep. Gary Franks--``Under this [rules] package, any income 
     tax increase must now be approved by a three-fifths majority 
     of the House of Representatives''--Cong Rec H43, Wednesday, 
     January 4.
       Rep. Jon Fox--``The goal of this rule is twofold. First, it 
     will require three-fifths majority vote for tax increase 
     measures and amendments''--Cong Rec H63, Wednesday, January 
     4.
       Rep. Jim Saxton--``As you know, this amendment to the House 
     rules provides for a three-fifths or 60 percent vote as a 
     necessity to pass any income tax increase''--Cong Rec H63, 
     Wednesday, January 4.
       Rep. Randy Tate--``I am in favor of the proposal of 
     requiring a 60-percent majority in order to raise taxes so 
     that the taxing ways of Congress are gone forever''--Cong Rec 
     H68, Wednesday, January 4.
       Rep. Joe Scarborough--``We have to have a three-fifths 
     supermajority now to pass any tax increases on middle class 
     citizens across this country''--Cong Rec H1898, Thursday, 
     February 16.
       Rep. Joe Scarborough--``When you pass a taxpayer protection 
     plan that we passed the first day of Congress, that requires 
     this body to pass new taxes increase by a three-fifths vote 
     in the 104th Congress, you are saving jobs . . .''--Cong Rec 
     H2031, Wednesday, February 22.
       Rep. Gil Gutknecht--``And we also required a three-fifths 
     vote to pass any kind of tax increase''--Cong Rec H6824, 
     Tuesday, July 11.
       Every single Member speaks broadly of all income tax 
     increases. No one even mentions rates, let alone a more 
     limited reading. It is only after their own bills are caught 
     by the rule that they try to insist on a narrower reading.
       The gist of Chairman Solomon's views is expressed in the 
     Rules Committee report on this rule. He boldly asserts, 
     without argument or evidence, that there were no violations 
     of clause 5(c) in the reconciliation bill and that the rule 
     is now being applied too broadly by others.
       It came as a great surprise to find this bold new (and 
     controversial) position in the Rules Committee report. The 
     first reason it is surprising is because I wrote to Chairman 
     Solomon in May (see attached letters) requesting that the 
     Rules Committee hold hearings on the application of the new 
     three-fifths vote requirement. In his June 12 response, 
     Chairman Solomon explained it ``would not be useful'' for the 
     Rules Committee to hold hearings because:
       ``We [on the Rules Committee] are generally considered as 
     arms of our respective party leaderships. We should not be in 
     the position of trying to second guess the Chair's rulings by 
     holding after-the-fact ``reviews'' of those rulings, let 
     alone attempt to dictate what interpretations the Chair 
     should use in the future.''
       It is also surprising to find controversial new 
     interpretations in the Rules Committee report because of the 
     long-standing tradition of making the reports extremely brief 
     and purely technical. The Rules Committee is specifically 
     exempt from many requirements on committee reports, because 
     of the long-standing tradition. In particular, the Rules 
     Committee is the only House committee not required to provide 
     additional time for dissenting views to be included in the 
     report.
       While the Rules Committee report appears to be from the 
     entire Committee, it should be noted that the language was 
     not shared with any Democratic member on the Committee until 
     after the report was filed. The language in the report is 
     clearly controversial. During mark-up, I moved to strike the 
     waiver of the three-fifths vote requirement (Republicans 
     voted it down on a straight party line vote) and Democratic 
     members strongly expressed their views during debate on that 
     motion. It is the considered opinion of the Democrats on the 
     Rules Committee that the reconciliation bill includes tax 
     rate increases within the meaning of clause 5(c) and that the 
     rule was never intended to be applied narrowly to bracket 
     increases--at least, not until Republicans found themselves 
     running afoul of it constantly.
       We hope the majority will return to the traditional Rules 
     Committee report and will stop using the report to include 
     clearly controversial statements or will share the language 
     in advance and permit those opposed to include dissenting 
     views.
       But let me return to the subject at hand. The Contract with 
     America tax bill raised the capital gains rate on those who 
     invest in qualified jobs-creating small businesses. A 

[[Page H 11995]]
     similar provision is in the reconciliation bill. The increase in the 
     capital gains rate for qualified investors raised the issue 
     of whether the Contract with America tax bill required a \3/
     5\ vote. On April 5, a series of parliamentary inquiries led 
     to a ruling of the Chair and a failed attempt to appeal the 
     ruling of the Chair. That led to an exchange of letters a few 
     months ago about the ruling of the Chair. In that exchange, 
     even Speaker Gingrich noted that the Chair's ruling ``did not 
     seem either satisfactory or overly compelling at the time . . 
     .''
                                                                    ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                      May 4, 1995.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request that the Rules 
     Committee hold hearings to review clause 5(c) of rule XXI in 
     light of recent interpretations. Clause 5(c) of rule XXI was 
     added on opening day, January 4, 1995, as part of House 
     Resolution 6. The new rule requires a \3/5\ majority to pass 
     or agree to a bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference 
     report ``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase.''
       During debate on H.R. 1215, Contract with America Tax 
     Relief Act of 1995, the new rule was interpreted in a 
     peculiar way to permit a simple majority vote to pass the 
     bill even though the bill carried a provision increasing from 
     28% to 39.6% the maximum rate of tax on the taxable portion 
     of capital gains income. The bill increases the statutory 
     maximum tax rate by repealing section 1(h) of the existing 
     Internal Revenue Code which provides that the maximum rate on 
     taxable capital gains can't exceed 28%.
       One particular capital gain to which the existing law 
     maximum 28% rate applies is described in the Internal Revenue 
     Code section 1202 titled ``50-percent exclusion for gain from 
     certain small business stock.'' Section 1202 describes 
     investments that qualify for the exclusion because they are 
     investments in job-creating small businesses. Under existing 
     law, other gains cannot take advantage of the 50% exclusion.
       H.R. 1215 imposes a higher statutory rate on all capital 
     gains including investments in job-creating small businesses. 
     The statutory rate increase results in an increase from 14% 
     to 19.8% in the effective maximum tax rate on qualified small 
     business investments. In other words, the bill raises the 
     maximum statutory rate on all capital gains but cuts the 
     effective capital gains tax rate for everyone except those 
     who invest in job-creating small businesses.
       The Chair relied on ``expert'' advice to conclude that a 
     maximum rate of 39.6% is not an increase over a maximum rate 
     of 28%. Expert advice is surely appropriate for the Chair to 
     rely on, especially on a matter of first impression such as 
     this and especially if it comes from a nonpartisan source. 
     Attached you will find the letter from the staff of Joint 
     Committee on Taxation (JCT) on which the decision is based. 
     Unfortunately, JCT's advice was hastily put together and the 
     reasoning employed is plainly open to question.
       The JCT argues that because the bill expands the category 
     of gains that can take advantage of the 50% exclusion, the 
     28% maximum rate is deadwood, and the bill repeals the 
     provision only because it is inoperative. That is simply not 
     true; if the bill did not repeal section 1(h) those taxpayers 
     in the top bracket could take advantage of both the expanded 
     50% exclusion on other gains and a maximum rate of 28% on 
     those gains.
       The JCT's ``deadwood'' argument is even weaker with respect 
     to the income tax rate increase on qualified small business 
     gains. Compare the treatment of this type of gain with 
     collectibles. The bill did not affect the taxable portion of 
     the gain from collectibles (gains remain 100% taxable) and 
     retained the maximum 28% rate for this type of property. Had 
     the bill not done so there would have been an income tax rate 
     increase on gain from collectibles. The bill also did not 
     affect the portion of gain from qualified small business 
     stock subject to taxation. However, the bill did not retain 
     the existing 28% maximum rate for this stock unlike the 
     treatment of collectibles. Therefore, the bill increases the 
     income tax rate on this type of property.
       The JCT further argues that the bill repeals one maximum 
     rate (28%) and leaves instead a higher rate (39.6%) but does 
     not explicitly increase the rate. By this reasoning, the bill 
     would have required a 3/5 majority for passage only if it had 
     specifically included a rate higher than 28% instead of 
     simply allowing the 39.6% rate to kick in. For example, a 29% 
     tax rate would have been considered an income tax rate 
     increase even though 39.6% is not an increase.
       Relying solely on the advice of the JCT, the Chair ignored 
     the position of the Treasury Department. Treasury had 
     consistently called the provision in question a federal tax 
     rate increase from its first testimony in February hearings 
     on H.R. 1215 through the letter dated April 5 to 
     Representative Moran from Assistant Secretary for tax 
     policy--Mr. Leslie Samuels--reiterating Treasury's position. 
     The April 5 letter includes a quotation from the February 22 
     testimony and the letter is also attached.
       I also suggest the Rules Committee look into the role of 
     committees giving advice to the Chair. The decision of April 
     5 brings into question the use of any partisan organization 
     in giving advice to the Chair. The Budget Act requires the 
     Chair to turn to the Budget Committee--rather than the 
     Congressional Budget Office--to determine estimated levels of 
     spending in deciding the applicability of Budget Act points 
     of order. While the Budget Committee has not so far abused 
     its responsibility, the ruling of April 5 reflects badly on 
     the practice of relying on the advice of committees. The 
     rulings of the Chair must be objective, nonpartisan and 
     reflect the traditions and practices of the House.
       Again, I urge you to hold hearings on this new rule in 
     light of the interpretation of April 5. The ruling of April 5 
     establishes a narrow interpretation of the applicability of 
     clause 5(c) of rule XXI. The narrow approach is directly 
     contrary to the expansive rhetoric that accompanied House 
     passage of the rules change; the discussion on opening day 
     focussed on how this change would inhibit any tax increase 
     and the illustrative lists included in the Record contained a 
     wide range of tax increases, most of which would have been 
     excluded by this ruling. In one of its first tests, the 
     intent of the rules change appears to be undermined.
       Does the April 5 ruling render ineffective the new clause 
     5(c)? Does the ruling call on us to redraft clause 5(c) so 
     that it can work? These and similar questions deserve our 
     careful attention and a full and public airing through the 
     normal committee hearing process.
           Sincerely,
                                              John Joseph Moakley,
     Ranking Minority Member.
                                                                    ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1995.
     Hon. Charles W. Johnson III,
     Parliamentarian, House of Representatives, Room H-209, 
         Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Johnson: We are writing to request that you 
     personally review clause 5(c) of rule XXI and the ruling of 
     April 5, 1995. As you recall, clause 5(c) of rule XXI was 
     added on opening day, January 4, 1995, as part of House 
     Resolution 6. The new rule requires a \3/5\ majority to pass 
     or agree to a bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference 
     report ``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase.''
       During debate on H.R. 1215, Contract with America Tax 
     Relief Act of 1995, the new rule was interpreted in a 
     peculiar way to permit a simple majority vote to pass the 
     bill even though the bill carried a provision repealing a 
     maximum tax rate of 28% on the 50% of gain from qualified 
     investments in job-creating small businesses that is taxable 
     under present law and leaving in its place a maximum rate of 
     39.6% on the same 50% of gain from such investments that will 
     be taxable under the bill.
       We are enclosing copies of letters sent to Speaker Gingrich 
     and to the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, 
     Representative Solomon, and one set of the attachments sent 
     to each.
       We hope that the parliamentarians will treat the ruling of 
     April 5, 1995 (Congressional Record, H4316-H4319) as merely 
     an incident in which the Chair relied on expert advice to 
     reach its conclusion. We hope that other expert advice will 
     be sought in deciding the applicability of clause 5(c) of 
     rule XXI and not simply the advice of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation (JCT). We note the Chair disregarded the advice of 
     the Treasury Department which had consistently called the 
     provision an income tax rate increase, from its first 
     testimony on the bill in February. We hope the April 5 ruling 
     does not stand for the proposition that the staff advice of 
     the JCT is the arbiter in these matters even when the 
     Treasury Department disagrees.
       In addition, it would be a mistake to rely on the line of 
     reasoning the Joint Committee on Taxation staff employed--
     which we believe to be faulty--and we hope it will not be 
     given the weight of precedent. The JCT staff letter also 
     opined that the new rule was not intended to apply to 
     effective rate increases. Even if effective tax rate changes 
     are outside the reach of clause 5(c), JCT's expertise does 
     not include the intent of House rules changes. We hope the 
     April 5 decision does not give special weight to the views of 
     the JCT in determining the intent of the standing rules.
       In conclusion, we urge you to review the ruling of April 5 
     carefully.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Gephardt,
       Minority Leader.
     Sam Gibbons,
       Ranking Minority Member, Ways and Means.
     John Joseph Moakley,
       Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules.
                                                                    ____


[[Page H 11996]]



                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Room H-204, Capitol 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The more we consider the ruling of the 
     Chair on April 5 with respect to clause 5(c) of rule XXI--on 
     the question of whether the bill H.R. 1215, as amended, 
     carried a Federal income tax rate increase and therefore 
     required a \3/5\ majority vote for passage--the more outraged 
     we become. We are writing to request that you personally 
     review the ruling and take whatever action is necessary to 
     prevent such an outrage from recurring.
       H.R. 1215, Contract with America Tax Relief Act of 1995, as 
     amended, included a provision repealing a maximum tax rate of 
     28% on capital gains income and leaving in its place a 
     maximum rate of 39.6%. The provision, on its face, is a 
     statutory income tax rate increase though it is also an 
     effective rate increase only on gains from qualified 
     investments in job-creating small businesses that are subject 
     to favorable tax treatment (50% exclusion) under current law.
       Essentially, the Chair relied on ``expert'' advice to 
     conclude that 39.6 is not a bigger number than 28. Imagine if 
     you had hired outside counsel on a personal tax matter and 
     the attorney advised you that a law did not increase your tax 
     rate even though it repealed a maximum rate of 28% and left 
     in its place a maximum rate of 39.6%. Would you ever again 
     turn to that tax counsel?
       Expert advice is surely appropriate, especially on matters 
     of first impression such as this and especially if it comes 
     from a nonpartisan source. The Joint Committee on Taxation 
     (JCT) staff advice, however, was hastily put together and the 
     reasoning employed is plainly open to question.
       The rulings of the Chair must be objective, nonpartisan and 
     reflect the traditions and practices of the House. The 
     conclusion reached in the April 5 ruling is so contrary to 
     common sense that it must be questioned.
       Relying solely on the advice of the JCT, the Chair ignored 
     the position of the Treasury Department. The Treasury 
     Department had consistently called the provision in question 
     a federal tax rate increase from its first testimony in 
     February in hearings on H.R. 1215 through the letter dated 
     April 5 to Representative Moran from Assistant Secretary for 
     tax policy--Mr. Leslie Samuels--reiterating Treasury's 
     position. The April 5 letter includes a quotation from the 
     February 22 testimony and the letter is attached.
       Finally, the ruling of April 5 establishes an 
     extraordinarily narrow interpretation of the applicability of 
     clause 5(c) of rule XXI. The narrow approach is directly 
     contrary to the expansive rhetoric that accompanied House 
     passage of the rules change; the discussion on opening day 
     focused on how this change would inhibit any tax increase; 
     the illustrative lists included in the Record contained a 
     wide range of tax increases, most of which would have been 
     excluded by this ruling. In one of its first tests, the 
     intent of the new rule appears to be undermined.
       Again, we urge you to personally review this ruling (i) to 
     see whether clause 5(c) of rule XXI must be redrafted to be 
     an effective deterrent to Federal income tax rate increases 
     and (ii) to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent any 
     further outrageous rulings of the Chair.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Gephardt,
       Minority Leader.
     Sam Gibbons,
       Ranking Minority Member, Ways and Means.
     John Joseph Moakley,
       Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules.
                                                                    ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                           Committee on Rules,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 1995.
     Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules, H-152 the 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Joe: I am enclosing for your information the letter I 
     have received from the Parliamentarian, Charles W. Johnson, 
     in response to your request for further information on the 
     interpretation of clause 5(c) of rule XXI, the three-fifths 
     vote requirement for tax rate increases.
       I think you will see from the explanation of the 
     circumstances surrounding the April 5 ruling of the Chair 
     that this is indeed a very difficult and complex area that 
     does not always readily lend itself to an instantaneous, 
     informed ruling. In some cases, such as on the March 24, 
     1995, Mink amendments to the welfare reform bill, the 
     question of whether a tax rate increase was involved was 
     ``self-evident.'' In other instances, such as the April 5 
     situation, there were numerous interrelated and technical 
     provisions involved on which even the most objective of 
     observers could disagree.
       I appreciate your raising the question for further 
     clarification. Obviously, this is still not a matter which 
     has been fully and finally resolved, and the Parliamentarian 
     welcomes further input from any interested party. Just as 
     with clause 5(b) of rule XXI, regarding what constitutes a 
     tax, this is an issue on which interpretations, guidelines, 
     policies and precedents will evolve as the Chair is presented 
     with new situations and questions.
       However, two obvious lessons can be learned from the April 
     5 situation regardless of one's position on the ruling. 
     First, Members who wish to raise or oppose points of order 
     are well-advised to present their arguments and background 
     information to the Parliamentarian, preferably in writing, 
     well in advance of the point of order being made in order to 
     ensure the fullest and fairest consideration of all sides of 
     the question and the most objective and informed ruling.
       Second, committees and Members should be especially careful 
     in drafting bills and amendments to avoid potential points of 
     order that their provisions may violate a House rule. This 
     also should involve advance consultation with the 
     Parliamentarians to be safe.
       I cite these two lessons without prejudice to either side 
     since I have not formulated any final position on the 
     intricate and interrelated issues raised by the ruling in 
     question. Frankly, not being a tax lawyer, I am, to quote 
     from the Parliamentarian's first reaction to the question, 
     still ``perplexed by the complexity'' of the issue.
       I am satisfied by the Parliamentarian's assurance in 
     response to your second question that the Chair will not rely 
     exclusively on any committee or entity in determining the 
     applicability of clause 5(c) or rule XXI. The Chair does have 
     a responsibility, as I earlier mentioned, to consult with a 
     variety of sources and experts in developing the best 
     possible ruling.
       As to the request in your May 4 letter that the Rules 
     Committee ``hold hearings to review clause 5(c) of rule XXI 
     in light of recent interpretations,'' I do not think this 
     would be useful for the reasons stated on page 3 of your 
     letter regarding ``the role of committees giving advice to 
     the Chair'' and ``the use of any partisan organization giving 
     advice to the Chair''. As you put it so well, ``The rulings 
     of the Chair must be objective, nonpartisan and reflect the 
     traditions and practices of the House.''
       The principle you enunciate should apply with even greater 
     force to the Rules Committee than to any other entity since 
     we are generally considered as arms of our respective party 
     leaderships. We should not be in the position of trying to 
     second guess the Chair's rulings by holding after-the-fact 
     ``reviews'' of those rulings, let alone attempt to dictate 
     what interpretations the Chair should use in the future.
       If, on the other hand, resolutions are introduced and 
     referred to us that amend existing rules to clarify their 
     application, then we certainly have authority to consider 
     such proposals as matters of original jurisdiction. I would 
     be willing to further discuss with you any such clarification 
     resolution on clause 5(c) that you or any other Member might 
     introduce. In the alternative, the Parliamentarian has 
     indicated that he would welcome any input you or others might 
     have towards further clarification of the rule.
       In conclusion, I again want to thank you for raising the 
     questions you have. You have made a valuable contribution to 
     fleshing-out the application of this important new House 
     reform provision. I greatly appreciate your interest in 
     wanting this super-majority vote requirement for tax rate 
     increases to be applied and enforced in the fairest and most 
     effective manner possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald B. Solomon,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosures.
                                                                    ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                          The Speaker's Rooms,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1995.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of 
     May 9, 1995, seeking my response to questions raised by 
     Representative Moakley in a letter to you. Those questions 
     concern clause 5(c) of rule XXI, which requires a three-
     fifths vote for approval of specified propositions ``carrying 
     a Federal income tax rate increase,'' and the interpretation 
     of that rule by the Chair on April 5, 1995. You ask that I 
     comment on the extent to which the Chair relied upon advice 
     from the Joint Committee on Taxation in this instance and in 
     past instances involving tax legislation.
       Clause 5(b) of rule XXI, prohibiting tax and tariff 
     measures in bills reported from a committee not having that 
     jurisdiction, or in amendments to such bills, was adopted in 
     1983. Over the ensuing 12 years, the Office of the 
     Parliamentarian has developed advice for the presiding 
     officers of the House, Members, and staff, on interpretations 
     of that rule. Rulings from the Chair based on that advice are 
     documented in section 846b of the House Rules and Manual. Our 
     analysis of provisions alleged to constitute taxes or tariffs 
     often has evolved through consultation with staff of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and other committees having 
     pertinent, substantive expertise. Over time, we have been 
     able to articulate guidelines, e.g., for distinguished taxes 
     and tariffs on the one hand and user or regulatory fees and 
     other forms of revenue on the other. Some of those guidelines 
     were formally enunciated by Speaker Foley on the opening day 
     of the 102d Congress (Jan. 3, 1991, pp. H29-31, H507), and 
     have been reiterated in the two succeeding Congresses (Jan. 
     5, 1993, p. H59; Jan. 4, 1995, p. H110). The Office of the 
     Parliamentarian did not consider it necessary to consult 
     directly with the Joint Committee on Taxation in the 
     development of general guidelines under clause 5(b). 

[[Page H 11997]]

       Clause 5(c) of rule XXI was adopted by the House on the 
     opening day of the 104th Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995) 
     with an explanation reiterating the language of the rule, 
     itself, following reports that earlier versions discussed in 
     the Republican Conference had proposed to apply the 
     requirement of a three-fifths vote to all increases in income 
     tax revenue or even to all increases in revenue.
       The rule has been found applicable to require a three-
     fifths vote only once, on an amendment offered by 
     Representative Mink to the Welfare Reform bill (H.R. 4) on 
     March 24, 1995. That amendment, which did not receive even a 
     majority vote, proposed a direct increase in the top marginal 
     rate of tax on corporate income in section 11 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986. The Parliamentarian did not seek 
     specialized expertise in developing advice for the Chair on 
     that occasion because it was clear on the face of the 
     amendment that it proposed to increase a Federal income tax 
     rate. The application of clause 5(c) to that text was self-
     evident.
       The circumstances surrounding the Chair's ruling of April 
     5, 1995, were more unusual. The possibility that a Member 
     might assert that the treatment of capital gains in H.R. 1215 
     constituted an income tax rate increase came to my attention 
     only late on that afternoon. It was presented to me orally 
     and without benefit of most of the written matters later 
     supplied for the Congressional Record. I was perplexed by the 
     complexity of the argument presented in confidence by 
     Representative Moran and asked his permission to present it 
     to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their 
     prompt analysis of the technical aspects of the question. I 
     chose this approach based on my recollection of the 
     professional reputation of the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     during my time in the Office of the Parliamentarian. 
     Representative Moran agreed to allow me to share the 
     information he had furnished with the staff of the Joint 
     Committee.
       The letter from the chief counsel of the Joint Committee, 
     Mr. Kenneth J. Kies, to Chairman Archer dated April 5, which 
     Chairman Archer read in response to Representative Moran's 
     point of order, was the entire response furnished that 
     evening by the Joint Committee. I provided Mr. Moran with a 
     copy of that letter when it was shown to me just prior to the 
     Chair's ruling. In preparing to advise the Chair, I compared 
     the analysis supplied by the staff of the Joint Committee 
     with the explanation of the capital gain provisions of the 
     bill in the report of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
     provision ultimately in question was described as follows:
       The bill allows individuals a deduction equal to 50 percent 
     of net capital gain for the taxable year. The bill repeals 
     the present-law maximum 28-percent rate. Thus, under the 
     bill, the effective rate on the net capital gain of an 
     individual in the highest (i.e., 39.6-percent) marginal rate 
     bracket is 19.8 percent.
       The bill repeals the provisions in the Revenue 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 providing a capital gain exclusion 
     for sales of certain small business stock (sec. 1202 of the 
     Code).
       A taxpayer holding small business stock on the date of 
     enactment is able to elect, within one year from the date of 
     enactment, to have the provision of present law (rather than 
     the provisions of the bill) apply to any gain from the sale 
     of the stock.
     (H. Rpt. 104-84, pp. 36-37). The more general commentary 
     earlier in the committee's report was couched in the context 
     of a reduction in the taxation of capital gains. For example, 
     it stated that ``reducing the rate of taxation of capital 
     gains would encourage investors to unlock many of these 
     gains.'' (Id. at p. 35). Thus, nothing in the committee 
     report suggested that the rate of tax on capital gains for 
     any taxpayer would be increased in any real or effective way.
       The concerns expressed by Representatives Gephardt, 
     Gibbons, and Moakley, in their letters of May 4, 1995, to the 
     Speaker, to you, and to me, prompted me to ask Mr. Kies to 
     elucidate his analysis of April 5. I enclose his response, 
     dated May 12, 1995, for your information. As you can see, Mr. 
     Kies remains convinced of the correctness of his advice to 
     Chairman Archer on April 5.
       In both of his letters, Mr. Kies proposes several alternate 
     arguments, each concluding that the provisions contained H.R. 
     1215 did not constitute a Federal income tax rate increase 
     within the meaning of clause 5(c) of rule XXI.
       The first essential question yet to be properly determined 
     is whether the new rule applies discretely to individual 
     provisions of a bill or, instead, to the integrated whole 
     formed by related provisions in the bill. Does a provision 
     (including a repealer) that, standing alone, textually 
     increases a statutory rate of Federal tax on income, 
     necessarily trigger the application of the three-fifths 
     voting requirement in clause 5(c) of rule XXI, regardless of 
     the effect of other provisions of the bill that may ensure 
     that the ostensible rate increase has no actual effect on any 
     taxpayer? I suggest that this is the essential, initial 
     question because the rule cannot sensibly be construed to 
     require the Chair to assess ``effective'' income tax rate 
     increases by weighing other provisions in the bill (including 
     repealers) in the form of exclusions (e.g., the repeal of 
     section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in H.R. 
     1215), deductions, credits, or other factors that might 
     determine a taxpayer's basis or other foundation of 
     liability.
       Mr. Kies also argues that, instead of proposing to repeal 
     section 1(h) of the Code, the bill could have been drafted to 
     render that section even more obviously ``dead wood'' (tax 
     practitioners' jargon for a provision of the Code no longer 
     applicable to any taxpayer). I would not advance that 
     hypothetical argument as a sufficient response to the 
     assertion that repealing section 1(h) would--as a matter of 
     law--expose income derived by capital gain to the full range 
     of statutory marginal rates, including those above 28 
     percent.
       The more difficult question, as posed by Mr. Kies in both 
     of his letters, is whether section 1(h) of the current Code 
     is not a rate of tax on income, but rather ``a formula 
     derived cap on total tax liability.'' The provision reads as 
     follows:
       (h) Maximum capital gains rate.--If a taxpayer has a net 
     capital gain for any taxable year, then the tax imposed by 
     this section shall not exceed the sum of--
       (1) a tax computed at the rates and in the same manner as 
     if this subsection had not been enacted on the greater of--
       (A) taxable income reduced by the amount of the net capital 
     gain, or
       (B) the amount of taxable income taxed at a rate below 28 
     percent, plus
       (2) a tax of 28 percent of the amount of taxable income in 
     excess of the amount determined under paragraph (1).

     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the net capital gain 
     for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by 
     the amount which the taxpayer elects to take into account as 
     investment income for the taxable year under section 
     163(d)(4)(B)(iii).

     (26 U.S.C. 1(h)). Mr. Kies' contention that it is ``generally 
     recognized in interpreting Code provisions that their titles 
     do not control their substantive effect'' is supported by 
     section 7806(b) of the Code as follows:

     nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references or 
     similar outline, analysis or descriptive matter relating to 
     the contents of this title be given any legal effect.

     (26 U.S.C. 7806(b)). Even if one applies this standard of 
     statutory construction and accords no weight to the caption 
     of section 1(h), the operative language immediately following 
     the caption does not rule out that the provision establishes 
     a ``rate'' of tax on income, as opposed to merely 
     establishing a ceiling on the amount of a taxpayer's 
     liability. On this question I continue to seek input from all 
     interested parties.
       In conclusion, I can only assure you and the Members who 
     have corresponded with us on this subject that I would not 
     advise the Chair to rely exclusively on a single entity or to 
     be totally reliant on any single input in determining the 
     applicability of clause 5(c) of rule XXI or the intent of the 
     House in adopting that rule.
           Sincerely,
     Charles W. Johnson.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Archer: The purpose of this letter is to further 
     clarify, based on our prior discussion, the basis for our 
     conclusion that the provision of H.R. 1215 repealing current 
     law section 1(h) does not constitute an income tax rate 
     increase for purposes of the House rules. The basis for this 
     conclusion relates generally to the fact that this provision 
     would be inoperative as relates to current law after the 
     enactment of the pending legislation. This would be the case 
     for the following reasons:
       1. As a result of the enactment of the 50% exclusion 
     applicable generally, taxpayers (other than those described 
     in the following two paragraphs) would have a tax rate lower 
     than 28%. Thus, the 28% maximum rate of section 1(h) of 
     current law would not cause a reduction in tax liability as 
     compared with that under current law, i.e., as relates to 
     current law liability, the provision would be inoperative.
       2. The 50% exclusion would not apply to collectibles under 
     H.R. 1215. For this group of taxpayers the maximum rate of 
     28% is retained by H.R. 1215.
       3. A question has been raised as to the potential 
     application of the 28% maximum rate under current law for 
     taxpayers currently qualifying for the special rules of 
     existing law section 1202. In light of the fact that this 
     provision would be repealed by H.R. 1215, the maximum rate of 
     28% would have no further application. Moreover, it should be 
     noted that the special rules of section 1202 are an exclusion 
     provision rather than a rate provision. Further, it should be 
     noted that concerns as to whether repeal of current law 
     section 1202, in conjunction with the repeal of current law 
     section 1(h), constitute a rate increase are focused upon the 
     effective rate impact rather than the occurrence of an income 
     tax rate increase. The House rule in question is not intended 
     to apply to effective rate changes.
       A further factor impacting our view that the repeal of 
     section 1(h) does not constitute an income tax rate increase 
     relates to the nature of section 1(h). That provision 
     operates as a cap on the maximum amount of tax liability 
     imposed by the Internal Revenue Code which is determined by 
     reference to a formula which includes a hypothetical 28% tax 
     rate. Thus, section 1(h) itself may not constitute an income 
     tax rate. Thus, even if the continued existence of section 
     1(h) were 

[[Page H 11998]]
     to have a practical effect as relates to the liability determined under 
     current law, we have some doubt as to whether its repeal 
     would constitute an income tax rate increase under the House 
     Rules. In light of the fact, as indicated above, that we have 
     concluded that the provision would not impact the calculation 
     of tax liability as relates to current law, we have concluded 
     that the provision's repeal is neither within the spirit nor 
     the letter of the House Rule in question.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth J. Kies.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1995.
     Hon. Charles W. Johnson,
     Parliamentarian, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Johnson: I am writing to further expand upon the 
     advice that we provided to you concerning the ruling of April 
     5, 1995, regarding H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 1995. As you will recall, the ruling relates 
     to Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI. I am writing to specifically 
     affirm our view that the provision of H.R. 1215 repealing 
     section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (hereinafter the ``Code'') was not within the scope of the 
     above referenced rule requiring a three-fifths majority to 
     approve legislation ``carrying a Federal income tax rate 
     increase.'' Your ruling of April 5, 1995, apparently has been 
     questioned by some minority members of the House of 
     Representatives. The purpose of my letter is to respond to 
     the issues which they have raised in letters to you, the 
     Speaker, of the House and the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Rules (copies attached).
       In reviewing the above-referenced letters, it is clear to 
     me that the minority Members who have questioned the ruling 
     have failed to thoroughly understand the intention of the 
     various provisions contained in H.R. 1215. As a result, I am 
     setting forth the analysis that I went through to conclude 
     that consideration of the provisions involved did not trigger 
     the application of Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI. The steps to that 
     analysis are set forth below.
       First, I consider the issue of whether the provision of 
     H.R. 1215 repealing existing law section 1202 of the Code, 
     the provision of current law providing a fifty-percent 
     exclusion for the gain from the sale of certain small 
     businesses stock, constitutes a Federal income tax rate 
     increase under the provision of Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI. I 
     concluded that such legislation is not within the scope of 
     the rule because the Code provision involved is merely an 
     exclusion provision, not an income tax rate increase. My 
     conclusion that Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI is intended to apply 
     only to specific income tax rate increases and, not to any of 
     the following: (i) revenue increases; (ii) effective rate 
     increases; or (iii) income tax increases, is based on two 
     factors. First, the actual text of Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI 
     specifically uses the language ``income tax rate 
     increase'' rather than ``revenue increase'', ``effective 
     income tax rate increase'' or ``income tax increase.'' 
     Thus, a construction of the actual language leads to the 
     conclusion that the provision was only intended to apply 
     to ``income tax rate increases.'' Second, I am advised by 
     those who participated in the development of Clause 5(c) 
     of Rule XXI that earlier versions of the rule, that were 
     considered but rejected, would have applied to all revenue 
     increases. It is important to note at this point that the 
     provision of H.R. 1215 repealing section 1202 did 
     specifically grandfather any ``taxpayer who holds 
     qualified small business stock (as defined in section 1202 
     of such code, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this Act) as of such date of enactment.'' 
     This grandfathering provision was necessary to ensure that 
     the repeal of section 1202 would not have retroactive 
     effect which could have violated Clause 5(d) of Rule XXI.
       The second step of my analysis was to consider whether 
     legislation to provide a fifty-percent exclusion for all 
     taxpayers, including those who no longer qualify for the 
     specific treatment of section 1202, could be considered 
     without triggering the application of Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI 
     if it included as an integral part of the fifty-percent 
     exclusion an amendment to current law section 1(h) of the 
     Code by inserting the following sentence at the end of 
     section 1(h): ``This section shall be applied prior to the 
     effect of the fifty-percent exclusion applicable to net 
     capital gain income.'' Assuming that the fifty-percent 
     exclusion was enacted in this manner, section 1(h), as 
     amended, would apply to no taxpayer whatsoever. If one were 
     to propose in the alternative repealing section 1(h) rather 
     than leaving it in the Code in a form under which it applied 
     to no taxpayer, it is inconceivable to me that Clause 5(c) of 
     Rule XXI would be applicable in that it is reasonable to 
     assume that the rule was not intended to prevent the 
     elimination of deadwood provisions from the Code even if they 
     included a reference to a hypothetical tax rate as in the 
     case of section 1(h).
       The third step of my analysis relates to the nature of 
     section 1(h) itself. While some have argued that it 
     constitutes an income tax rate, in substance it is not 
     specifically an income tax rate but rather a formula derived 
     cap on total tax liability.\1\
     \1\ A consideration of the actual language of the provision 
     highlights this point. In this regard, it should be noted 
     that it is generally recognized in interpreting Code 
     provisions that their titles do not control their substantive 
     effect. Section 1(h) reads as follows:
     ``(h) Maximum Capital Gains Rate.--If a taxpayer has a net 
     capital gain for any taxable year, then the tax imposed by 
     this section shall not exceed the sum of--
     ``(1) a tax computed at the rates and in the same manner as 
     if this subsection had not been enacted on the greater of--
     ``(A) taxable income reduced by the amount of the net capital 
     gain, or
     ``(B) the amount of taxable income taxed at a rate below 28 
     percent, plus
     ``(2) a tax of 28 percent of the amount of taxable income in 
     excess of the amount determined under paragraph (1).
     ``For purposes of the preceding sentence, the net capital 
     gain for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not below 
     zero) by the amount which the taxpayer elects to take into 
     account as investment income for the taxable year under 
     section 163(d)(4)(B)(iii).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Another way to analyze the issue raised by the April 5, 
     1995, ruling is to consider whether Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI 
     would have applied if the only provision contained in H.R. 
     1215 had been a provision which would have added a limitation 
     to section 1(h) like that set forth above, i.e., to modify 
     the application of the provision so that it was applied prior 
     to the effect of any fifty-percent exclusion from capital 
     gains. Such a change would have the effect of increasing the 
     effective rate on capital gains subject to section 1202 of 
     the Code from 14 percent to 19.6 percent. Again, I do not 
     believe that such a change was contemplated by Clause 5(c) of 
     Rule XXI. In order for the argument set forth by those who 
     have written to you on this issue to prevail, I believe they 
     would also have to assume that the effective income tax rate 
     increase which would occur under such an amendment to section 
     1(h) would also be within the scope of Clause 5(c) of Rule 
     XXI. This again would raise the prospect that any income tax 
     increase would be subject to Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI, an 
     interpretation which is clearly inconsistent with the 
     specific language of the rule.
       You have also asked me to comment upon additional input 
     concerning this matter which was provided by Congressman 
     Moran during the debate of April 5, 1995, but which neither 
     you nor I had had the opportunity to review at that time. 
     Specifically, you have alluded to a letter to Congressman 
     Moran dated April 5, 1995, from Leslie B. Samuels, the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department for Tax 
     Policy. A copy of this letter was placed in the Congressional 
     Record of April 5, 1995 (H 4318). I have reviewed the letter 
     involved and conclude that my analysis is in no way affected 
     by the argument set forth in the letter of Mr. Samuels. The 
     letter from Mr. Samuels relies entirely upon the proposition 
     that effective rate income tax increases would be subject to 
     Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI. For the reasons set forth above, I 
     do not believe that this is a correct interpretation of the 
     rule. It is clear that Mr. Samuels' letter is based upon such 
     an interpretation in that his letter specifically asserts 
     that the repeal of section 1202 would cause the rate of tax 
     on this income to rise from 14 percent to 19.8 percent. In 
     view of the fact that the Code contains no provision setting 
     forth a rate of 19.8 percent, it is obvious that Mr. Samuels' 
     reference to a 19.8 percent tax rate is a reference to an 
     effective tax rate rather than an actual income tax rate. In 
     view of this, I do not believe that the conclusion reached in 
     the ruling of April 5, 1995, would have been affected by the 
     information to which Mr. Moran alluded during the floor 
     debate.
       An example of a provision which is within the scope of 
     Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI is the increases in tax rates 
     included as part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, 
     legislation which the Members who wrote to you are certainly 
     familiar with. That legislation would also have violated the 
     absolute prohibition on a ``retroactive Federal income tax 
     rate increase'' set forth in Clause 5(d) of Rule XXI.
       I hope that you find this additional analysis useful in 
     confirming that the interpretation of Clause 5(c) of Rule XXI 
     adopted as part of the ruling on April 5, 1995, is correct.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth J. Kies.
                                                                    ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                          The Speaker's Rooms,

                                                    June 26, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Minority Leader,
     Hon. Sam Gibbons,
     Committee on Ways and Means,
     Hon. Joseph Moakley,
     Committee on Rules.
       Dear Gentlemen: I am writing in response to your letter 
     requesting my review of a ruling of the Chair dealing with 
     Rule XXI which calls for a \3/5\ vote to pass any Federal tax 
     rate increase.
       I am sure you are aware of a letter sent by Mr. Charles W. 
     Johnson, the House Parliamentarian, in response to a request 
     from Rep. Gerald Solomon seeking clarification of this 
     ruling. I believe his response accurately portrayed the 
     circumstances surrounding this ruling. Rep. Solomon's letter 
     to Rep. Moakley speaks to this matter sufficiently and I 
     endorse its conclusions.
       After reviewing the material contained in your letter, the 
     language in H.R. 1215 dealing with the capital gains 
     treatment of certain small business stock, the follow-up 
     letter from Joint Taxation, and the response from the 
     Parliamentarian, I can see how confusing the situation was 
     and how the Chair's ruling itself did not seem either 
     satisfactory or 

[[Page H 11999]]
     overly compelling at the time of issuance. However, based upon the 
     circumstances, I believe the Parliamentarian's guidance and 
     subsequent ruling by the Chair were objective.
           Yours very truly,
                                                    Newt Gingrich,
                                                          Speaker.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just talk about this so-
called Medicare coverage of anticancer drug treatment. It is important 
to know that in the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
Nevada, [Mr. Ensign], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], 
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], all voted to deny women annual mammograms. 
They all voted to deny colorectal screening because they said they did 
not have the money. This was at the same time when the Speaker was 
cutting a deal to give $3 billion to the American Medical Association, 
and these people did not have the money.
  Now they come in at the behest of some drug company in a payoff, slip 
in two pharmaceutical treatments that will not do you any good if you 
do not discover the cancer in time, and say they are trying to help 
seniors. Thanks. My mother does not need that kind of help.
  The seniors need to find out in a timely fashion when they get 
cancer, and the Republicans, in an effort to pay for a huge tax cut for 
the rich, are denying the seniors the chance to have the screening and 
the testing that the American Cancer Society says is necessary. You 
should be ashamed of yourselves. You have no compassion, no willingness 
to help treat the seniors. All you want is to waive the capital gains 
tax for a few rich Republicans and give a payoff to a pharmaceutical 
company who has made huge contributions to the Republican coffers. That 
is criminal.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, it is almost sad that people who used to 
chair subcommittees and committees are reduced to coming to the floor 
and shouting and carrying on in terms like ``bribery'' and ``payoff'' 
and all of that. It is almost sad. But the fact is that some of this 
talk that we are hearing on the floor about not doing our business is 
somewhat reminiscent of the old story of the kid who shot his two 
parents and then complained that he was an orphan.
  The fact is that all over the Hill, what we have met as we have 
attempted to push through a legislative program is obstruction and 
delay, in an attempt to do everything possible to stop the program. 
There are even people of the minority party around the Hill that are 
trying to stop the conference on the reconciliation from even taking 
place, and have not yet even gotten to the place where conferees can be 
appointed.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating, then, to hear that the work cannot 
get done and the conference cannot meet because the minority party is 
in fact carrying on the blockading action. The minority party has 
attempted on the floor to delay many of these actions on appropriation 
bills and all kinds of things as they have come through the House. We 
have had a series of attempts to obstruct and obfuscate.
  The bottom line is that it is amusing to have this kind of talk, and 
particularly to have people out here shouting at the top of their lungs 
about the fact that the work is not getting done. In fact, the work is 
getting done. The work is getting done in exactly the same way that 
some of these gentlemen voted on in the past. Back during the 1980's we 
ran the entire Government on continuing resolutions. When we pass a 
continuing resolution, that is regarded as not getting the work done. 
That is exactly one way of doing our work when in fact Democrats are 
obstructing.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado and others keep 
talking about being armed in negotiations and conflict and negotiating 
with strength and all that. I am not aware of any legislative gun 
control having passed here, and indeed, I think they are going to go 
into negotiations with a lot of armament. Indeed, what they have on the 
table is, between the two adversaries, they have a cocked pistol. If it 
goes off though, unfortunately, neither one of those gets plugged, it 
is the economy that gets taken out. That is what is at issue here.
  The issue is whether this is what is called a clean debt ceiling, in 
which you just simply say the country can borrow more for a short 
period of time and avoid default, or you weight it up with so many 
obstacles that in order to get the votes and to pass it, you know it 
has to be vetoed, and in so doing risk that default. I do not think the 
country deserves that kind of gamesmanship.
  I would like to also accept the gentleman's challenge who said, ``I 
defy anyone to look me in the eye and defend the Department of 
Commerce.'' I am here, and I am looking the gentleman in the eye. Here 
is why. Because when Members vote for this rule, if they vote for this 
rule, they will dismantle the Department of Commerce. It is going to be 
done in the name, supposedly, of ending bureaucratic sprawl and 
inefficiency.
  Let us look at what happens. Over here is the Department of Commerce 
as it presently exists. When it is taken apart, if this rule should 
pass, it now divides over into 11 different groups in creating eight 
new entities. The Department of Commerce, which coordinates trade and 
business, it is business's main spot at the Cabinet table, now turns 
into a new Trade Representative, a bigger Department of the Interior, a 
bigger OMB, a bigger International Trade Commission, a bigger 
Department of Labor, a bigger Small Business Administration, and a 
bigger or new Office of Programs Resolution, and several more. We get 
Defense in there, too. They do a good job at commerce, of course. We 
get all that in there when we vote for this.
  That is why it is so foolhardy, I think in this, which should be a 
clean debt ceiling extension, to dismantle an entire Cabinet agency. 
When we do that, we will take out the Economic Development 
Administration, with $131,000 alone to the gentleman's State in 
Colorado since 1965 in vital water and sewer projects. That is not good 
economics.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope, before the gentleman yields, and first of all I 
appreciate him looking me in the eyes and saying that, but I think he 
ought to complete his statement. The completion of the statement would 
say that we have a net savings of $4 billion if we eliminate that 
department. Furthermore, I think the gentleman ought to go on to say 
that we are going to eliminate several thousand bureaucrats and we are 
going to make this operation much more efficient for American business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, in responding to the gentleman, I never saw 
efficiency come from greater inefficiency. The Department of Commerce 
is what coordinates the trade functions, and as I say, there is $131 
million to the gentleman's State in water and sewer projects, defense 
dislocation, and many other areas. He is going to spread it out over a 
lot of different places where it is not going to be very, very 
effective. That is not good efficiency, that is not good policy.
  The worst thing of all, of course, what they have not dealth with, 
they are trying this onto a debt ceiling bill and pointing this gun at 
the Department of Commerce. I happen to think the Department of 
Commerce is good for the economy. That should be a debate for another 
day. But do not endanger simply a debt ceiling extension.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, again, I hope the gentleman does not leave 
the Chamber, because I would like to continue this. I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, to look at the debt ceiling like an 
individual goes to the banker and says to the banker, I would like to 
have a loan. And the banker says, well, do you have any collateral? The 
person says, well, no, I do 

[[Page H 12000]]
not have any collateral. The banker says, well, I do not have a loan.
  The elimination of Commerce is in a sense our collateral to the 
American people as we accumulate more debt. We are saying, we are 
willing on a temporary basis to accumulate slightly more debt; we need 
to borrow more money from the next generation. We are saying to the 
next generation, our collateral is that we are going to kill a 
department.
  Now, there are 71 functions of trade right now in the Federal 
Government. We are going to consolidate this in one operation. We are 
going to kill the advanced technology program, which is corporate 
welfare. It is a big handout to businesses to do research at the 
taxpayers' expense.
  We should abolish the Economic Development Agency, but we are going 
to downsize it. We are going to save money there, and we are going to 
save employees there.
  What we are doing, rather than spreading responsibility, we are 
focusing responsibility. When you take 71 trade functions and you 
consolidate it into one operation, you have a lot more consistency of 
policy and you save an awful lot of money.
  So what we are saying to the American people is, we are going to get 
rid of a department. Now, if you do not want to get rid of a 
department, you can make a lot of excuses as to why you do not want to 
do it. But at the end of the day, we are, in fact, saving billions of 
dollars for the American people, and at the same time saying, as a 
good-faith effort, we are going to give you this and we are going to 
incur a little bit more debt. I remind you, although the little bit 
more debt that we are going to incur expires in December, as it should.
  Then when we finally lay down our reconciliation plan, which is the 
plan we present to the next generation for incurring debt over the next 
7 years until we balance, that is our good-faith effort. That is the 
reason why there is something attached to this bill. I would hope that 
the President in the final analysis will accept the fact that the 
American people want less bureaucracy and less Cabinet positions.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not help but observe the wry comment by our 
colleague from Pennsylvania about a kind of role reversal going on 
here. I might say to the gentleman, it is refreshing to see the 
gentleman come down to the well and lower his voice and speak with a 
smile, in contrast to a style, a very different style in previous 
Congresses.
  Adoption of this rule will let us make it very clear, eliminate the 
Department of Commerce, a proposition concocted in the dead of night by 
the Republican majority leadership, takes a Department of Commerce 
crafted by a Republican administration in earlier years, creating one-
stop shopping for all American businesses, combining economic 
development, trade and technology in a way to promote growth in our 
economy and job creation, and scatter this all to the winds in a 
disjointed shuffled jumble of unrelated functions and proliferation of 
agencies that are now combined under the umbrella of the Department of 
Commerce.
  If the Republican leadership were serious about this proposal, they 
would not join it in this fashion with time spooned out in limited 
debate; they would bring it to the floor under an open rule subject to 
amendment and subject to adequate debate before the American public and 
air the issue, its merits, its demerits. But no, they want to hide this 
thing under their bushel and bring it here to the floor and abolish 
programs like the Economic Development Administration, which has 
survived numbers of administrations, numbers of attempts to abolish 
EDA, and on a bipartisan basis, by three- and four-to-one votes in this 
Chamber. EDA has been preserved because this is a program that creates 
jobs, that returns more in tax dollars every year than all of the money 
that has been invested in EDA over its entire period of time.
  Even in this Congress on a bipartisan basis, an amendment during the 
appropriation bill consideration on this floor, the proposal to 
eliminate EDA, the amendment to abolish EDA, was defeated on an 
overwhelming vote of 310 to 115. It had the support of a majority of 
Democrats, a majority of the Republicans, and a majority of the 
Republican freshman class. Why would we want to in this cavalier 
fashion abolish a department of government without adequate discussion 
and debate?
  We ought to stop the partisan politics. If we are serious about the 
Department of Commerce issue, bring it up fairly. Take the bushel off 
the issue. Let it be debated in the sunlight of open discussion and 
floor debate and open amendment process. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to set the record straight. 
The fact is, we did debate this matter of the Department of Commerce 
elimination under the reconciliation bill. It passed this House under 
the reconciliation bill, so it has been on the floor before.
  Second, with regard to EDA and because of those votes on the House 
floor we did in fact include EDA under the Small Business 
Administration in this bill. So EDA remains a part of the Federal 
Government, it simply goes to a different location.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. I presided during a lot of that reconciliation debate, 
and I do not remember a single word being uttered, maybe in some 
revision or extension put in the Record that he talked about, about the 
Department of Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Commerce has done a good job. There 
have been some very distinguished Republican Secretaries of the 
Department of Commerce down there. It is amazing to me that, now that 
we have a black man as Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the 
Republicans suddenly decide that they have to abolish the Department of 
Commerce. You know, it was your darling department for years around 
here. You all nurtured it, you hugged it, you put your best people in 
it. But now that there is a black man in charge of it, you decide you 
want to abolish it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a question as to why are we considering a 
temporary debt extension? Why are we not considering a permanent 
extension for the 2-year period? After all, we have already approved in 
this House an increase in the debt by $600 billion to $5.5 trillion. 
Why should we not separate that? Let us pass a permanent extension for 
this term of Congress so that we do not hold hostage the credit of this 
Nation, which could affect the interest rates that our constituents pay 
on their mortgage payments or on their car loans or on their credit 
cards. Why do we not just do that, separate it, get it done.
  Mr. Speaker, we could have bipartisan support for that type of a debt 
extension. But no, we have a temporary bill before us. Why is it 
temporary? Why? Because we have not gotten our work done. Republicans 
have not brought forward the appropriation bills or the changes in the 
entitlement programs to conform to their budget. It should have been 
done by October 1, but we are now debating this in November when it 
should have been done in October. So we need to do a temporary 
extension.
  Well, we could have bipartisan support for a temporary extension, if 
we would just remove the issues that are not relevant to the debt 
extension. It is your fault that we have a delay. We are willing to 
have bipartisan support for a temporary extension if we just do a 
temporary extension. But no, you have to have all of these other issues 
to this temporary debt extension bill.
  Mr. Speaker, they promised that we were going to have regular 
legislative process, that we would use the procedures properly in this 
House. That was one of their promises. This bill that is before us and 
the rule that is before us violates that promise. Another Republican 
promise broken.

[[Page H 12001]]

  I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is well to point out that the 
last three Commerce Secretaries under Republican administrations all 
favor the elimination of the Department of Commerce. I would also think 
that someone who was given the distinguished position of leading one of 
our major committees in the House does undermine the debate on this 
floor when he brings racism into the argument.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the State of Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this rule for 
consideration of the debt limit extension. The provisions of this debt 
limit increase respond to the very serious fiscal situation facing our 
Nation today. Along with the short-term continuing resolution passed by 
the House yesterday, this legislation will restore stability and 
competence in the U.S. Treasury's ability to meet its most fundamental 
financial responsibilities.
  Now, this is not an easy vote for Republicans. We are not used to 
digging a hole deeper and deeper and deeper, but it is the responsible 
thing to do and we must do it. So, the self-enactng provisions of this 
rule will ensure that, as we vote to increase the debt ceiling, we will 
also be voting to make an important down payment on our plan to balance 
the Federal budget.
  We include a provision to commit both the Congress and the President 
to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002 before we consider any 
further increase in the public debt.
  Now, those who criticize that plan have said that we are trying to 
blackmail the President into signing the CR and the debt limit. But the 
truth is, this legislation and the important changes made possible 
under it simply offer the President an opportunity to join with us in 
this historic effort to get to a balanced budget in 7 years and limit 
the size and scope of the Federal Government along the way.
  So instead of criticism, we offer our friends on the other side a 
chance to vote for real change and fiscal responsibility. Instead of 
partisan rhetoric and misinformation, we offer the opportunity to cut 
spending, to shrink the Federal Government, and to get our fiscal house 
in order. That is what I believe the American people sent us here to 
do, and that is what this legislation will accomplish.
   Mr. Speaker, now is the time for bold action to carry out a vision 
for a more stable and secure future for our children and grandchildren. 
I urge my colleagues to support this rule, pass this important 
legislation, and let us get this country to a point where we can get 
our budget balanced.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of experience that gives 
politics a bad name. Consider for a minute this six-page bill which 
will extend the debt ceiling of the United States, will make certain 
that our Government does not default on its debts. The United States of 
America has never defaulted on its debts. We want to make certain that 
our word is good, not only in the United States, but around the world.
  The failure to pass this six-page bill will have a dramatic impact on 
every family in America, particularly those who happen to have 
something called an ARM, an adjusted rate mortgage. If the Gingrich 
Republicans are successful, if they force America into default for some 
political strategy, it will force interest rates up on every American 
homeowner paying an ARM, an adjusted rate mortgage. So, for the 
Gingrich Republican strategy, there is a tax on homeowners.

                              {time}  1315

  That, of course, would suggest that maybe we ought to just pass this 
six-page bill and do the responsible thing. But my friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle have much more in store.
  Look at this. This is the beginning of the amendments which they want 
to offer to the six-page bill. Do not take the time to ask any Member 
on the floor if they have read these amendments, the answer is no. And 
guess what, there is another 200-page amendment the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania wants to offer that we have not even seen. And then the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has the opportunity under the rule to 
come in with another mystery amendment.
   Mr. Speaker, this is the most suspicious meatloaf that has ever hit 
this floor of the House of Representatives. What is sad is that we are 
putting ourselves through these mental and political gyrations so that 
Speaker Gingrich can have leverage on the President of the United 
States. See, they want to load this bill up with so many things that 
Bill Clinton will veto it and that our Government will go into default 
and that homeowners will pay the bill.
  I think that is wrong. People sent Members of Congress here, 
Democrats and Republicans, to solve problems, to work together, not to 
impose more burdens on working families and homeworkers across America.

  It is about time to stop the politics. Six pages, that is the 
responsible thing for us to address; 200, 300, 500, is a political 
game, the kind of political game that gives politics a bad name.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes an excellent point, but 
this is not without precedent. The gentleman came, I believe, in 1982. 
I was elected in a special election in 1981. The Republicans were 
effectively in control of the House of Representatives and took the 
rule away from us, and a 1,400-page bill, reconciliation bill, was put 
on the floor in June. It was still warm from the Xerox when they asked 
us to vote on it. So, there is precedent for doing this. It is business 
as usual from 1981 to today.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this amendment is not 
public interest, good government. The amendment here is generated by 
special interest groups, special interest groups which some way or 
another did not get a bite of the apple in the Republican 
reconciliation bill.
  With this, with the amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
going to come in with, and the mystery amendment from the gentleman 
from Texas, I have to say to my colleagues on the floor, I have been 
around legislatures and Congress for a long time, and I have seen a lot 
of lobbyists and special interest groups. What is happening on this 
floor today is turning the House of Representatives into a dismal swamp 
of special interests. It is shameful.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a couple of things. First of 
all, I am appalled by the language that has just been used by the 
previous speaker. Maybe consideration at some point in time ought to be 
given to the Americans of the next generation who are going to face 
this deficit of $37 million an hour.
  My colleagues talk about impact on homeowners. They talk about impact 
on the children and the next generation. That is where the impact is. 
And they want to talk about special interests. Are my colleagues saying 
special interests are the people that want cancer treatments or special 
interests are small businesses? I think those are the things they ought 
to consider.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, what is this debate all about? Let me try to 
bring this debate into some perspective.
  We are raising the debt of the United States of every man, woman, and 
child for the next 34 days in the amount of $67 billion added debt. I 
went down and took out $269 from my savings account. This new debt is 
$269 for every man, woman, and child in the United States for 34 days.
  Mr. Speaker, by the time you eat your Thanksgiving turkey, it will be 
$118 per man, women, and child. Get this into some perspective. We are 
already $4.9 trillion in debt. Get this into some perspective.
  For 30 years, these good intentions have driven us into the 
poorhouse. And 

[[Page H 12002]]
here we are, we could take the money and pay for the entire country's 
Medicaid with this; $67 billion is 74 percent of all the money we spend 
for every Medicaid recipient in the country, that is what we are going 
into debt for in the next 34 days. We only reorganize one department, 
the Department of Commerce, one department, 36,000 employees, 21,000 
within 50 miles of where I am standing, 21,000. We will eliminate over 
7 years, 11,000 positions. Why do we need that many people?
  Mr. Speaker, we are eliminating 40 programs. We are saving $6 
billion. This is just a downpayment on the mess that has been created 
over these three or four decades. So, we have run ourselves into the 
poorhouse. It is only a downpayment. Bring it into perspective: For 
every man, woman, and child in this country, $269 between now and 
December 12.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again, this is 40 
days after the homework was due. The fiscal year ended 40 days ago and 
only 12 percent of the budget has been dealt with. So, here we are with 
the debt extension and now Members are adding all sorts of things to it 
and saying the President has to have a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, how can this side of the aisle yell that, when they 
cannot get a budget? They are still trying to get a budget, because 
they cannot get the two Houses together. This is really all about show 
business, and how tragic. It is the American people who are going to 
pay.
  One of the fastest-growing items in our budget is interest on the 
debt. If we hold hostage the full faith and credit of this Government, 
wait until my colleagues see what happens to interest rates. It will 
absolutely subsume almost everything that we pay in taxes. That is 
ridiculous.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a person that does not want to pay more interest 
than I have to. what we are doing here today is guaranteeing Americans 
will pay higher interest. And also, those who have an adjustable rate 
mortgage are going to pay higher interest.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear all this stuff about the Department of Commerce 
and why do we need it. We need it for the same reason all of our allies 
we are competing with in the global marketplace have one. It is called: 
To create jobs; to hold the position we are in; to get us out there and 
to keep being more and more competitive.
  If every western industrialized country has business recognized at 
their cabinet level, can my colleagues believe we would say no, we do 
not need this anymore? How are we going to create jobs for the American 
people? Where are we going to go? Why are we not having debates on 
this? Why are they shoving it into bills and then shoving it to the 
President's desk and playing this ``High Noon''? Here we are, it is 
John Wayne.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be John Wayne. This is the full faith 
and credit of this Government. Nobody has played so fast and loose with 
it, and we should not either. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], my 
colleague, talks about show and tell. How much cooperation has the 
gentlewoman given us on this budget? How many balance budgets has the 
gentlewoman voted for during her career? Now very many, if we take a 
look at it.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman wants to talk about what is going to 
help business in this country, small business in this country, it is 
not the Department of Commerce. They do not help my little business in 
New Castle, CO, or small business in the gentlewoman's district in 
Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, talk about tort reform. Where was the gentlewoman, my 
colleague from Colorado, on tort reform? Talk about regulation relief. 
Where was the gentlewoman on regulation relief for the small businesses 
in Colorado?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, no, I will not yield on my time. I do not 
have enough time remaining.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I have not answered.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that one of the 
so-called extraneous matters in this bill is something very, very 
important and it is not really extraneous. It would end the endless 
appeals of death row inmates. It would finally enact, after years and 
years, if the President signs this into law, reforms of habeas corpus 
petitions in death penalty cases; something that many of us have been 
trying to accomplish for a long period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the victims, for example the 
victims in Oklahoma City in that bombing, are as concerned if not more 
concerned about getting this accomplished than anything else that we 
could pass in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very opportune time, a very timely moment 
in this particular provision that the President has to face to put it 
in here to finally get a confrontation of this issue, and give him the 
opportunity to sign into law a provision that stops these forever-
extending carrying out of death penalty sentences that so often have 
delayed that throughout the Nation in many, many, many cases.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this does not go down to the President. I am 
pleased that it is in here today, and I would certainly hope that he 
would not veto this bill with that in it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how many speakers does the gentleman 
from Colorado have left?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think probably two, possibly three.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we talk a little more about 
the Department of Commerce and the importance of making it more 
efficient in this Government. First of all, this is an issue that has 
been talked about. Every major newspaper in the country has written 
about it and debated about it. This is not something that came in the 
late of night and suddenly appeared on the House floor today. We did 
talk about it in the reconciliation package.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to take a look at the business 
community. A recent poll by Business Week revealed that by a 2-to-1 
ratio, Business Week executives say, ``Eliminate the Department.'' How 
many of us in these House Chambers have received letters from small 
businesses in our district that are not direct beneficiaries or do not 
have a contract with the Department of Commerce, how many of us have 
received correspondence from these people saying, ``Save the Department 
of Commerce,'' or, ``If the Department of Commerce is eliminated, we 
are not going to be able to compete out in that world''?
  Mr. Speaker, the important elements of that Department, and they are 
very, very few in my opinion, the important elements of that Department 
have been preserved on transfer out of that Department to other 
agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad chivalry is alive in Ohio, 
anyway. It does not seem to be in Colorado. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that all the people that have written 
to me from Colorado about the Department of Commerce have been small 
businesses. They claim that big business does not need the Department 
of Commerce; it is the small business.
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to set the record straight that I have 
voted for many a balanced budget and I have helped draft some, and I 
resent very much the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] taking my 
name and pointing those things out and not yielding back.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. All chivalry is not 
dead.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado, my colleague, resents the 

[[Page H 12003]]
fact that I have the courage to stand up and debate with her? Sometimes 
people will not stand up to the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, It is about 
time some of the facts of the gentlewoman be called to order.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think probably some of the correspondence 
the gentlewoman has received on the elimination of the Department of 
Commerce is from some of the employees of the Department of Commerce.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, no I will not yield.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to debate the 
gentleman. Parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McINNIS. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will be in order. The 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] controls the time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, having been involved in the private sector in 
international trade before I got here, and coming from business, I can 
tell my colleagues that this proposal is a tremendous improvement over 
the current disjointed, disorganized trade mess.
  We have taken the USTR office, which only has about 150 people, and 
consolidated into that office from the Department of Commerce all of 
the trade activities that serve medium and small business and can do a 
great job in improving our competition in the international market.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Payne].

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule.
  Yesterday in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment that 
offered a fair and rational way to keep pressure on both the Congress 
and the President to reach a compromise to balance the Federal budget 
and without risking default. We will not have an opportunity though to 
vote on my commonsense amendment because the Committee on Rules 
rejected it.
  My amendment represented a fair proposal. It would have given us 30 
days after the President sent the reconciliation or after the President 
has received the reconciliation bill from the Congress to work out 
policy differences and to get to our shared goal, which is a balanced 
budget. It was simple. It was straightforward. It kept this debt 
ceiling extension clear of these partisan distractions.
  This is essential if we are to work together to reach a balanced 
budget, which the American people have told us that they want, not a 
Republican effort or a Democratic effort to reorder our spending 
priorities but a bipartisan effort to bring fiscal responsibility to 
this Government.
  We must not allow the United States to default on its debt. We must 
move forward with balancing the budget, free from partisan distractions 
represented by this rule.
  I strongly support and advocate getting this country's fiscal house 
in order. However, I believe that this historic effort is one which 
will take more time than is permitted in this Republican bill before us 
today. I believe balancing our budget by the year 2002 is too important 
an issue for this country not to allow the President 30 days after this 
important legislation hits his desk.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow time for bipartisan cooperation 
on our Nation's budget. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against 
this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy rule. I think it is dangerous. I think 
since 10:30 last night we added almost 300 pages to this bill which 
nobody has read. I think we are messing around with the credibility of 
the United States, and we should not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed; contained a              None.
                                  Package.                                 closed rule on H.R. 1                
                                                                           within the closed                    
                                                                           rule.                                
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive; Motion               N/A.
                                                                           adopted over                         
                                                                           Democratic objection                 
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole to limit                   
                                                                           debate on section 4;                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           preference.                          
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive; only              2R; 4D.
                                                                           certain substitutes.                 
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive;                      N/A.
                                  Scheduling.                              considered in House                  
                                                                           no amendments.                       
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference.                     
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             gets preference.                     
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 60           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                            gets preference.                     
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                        Time Cap on                          
                                  of 1995.                                 amendments.                          
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Deportation                              gets preference;                     
                                  Improvement Act.                         Contains self-                       
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                          Time Cap on                          
                                  Block Grants.                            amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Revitalization                           Time Cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive; brought              N/A.
                                  Habeas.                                  up under UC with a 6                 
                                                                           hr. time cap on                      
                                                                           amendments.                          
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed; Put on                   None.
                                                                           Suspension Calendar                  
                                                                           over Democratic                      
                                                                           objection.                           
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Extend the Health                        order only the                       
                                  Insurance                                Gibbons amendment;                   
                                  Deduction for the                        Waives all points of                 
                                  Self-Employed.                           order; Contains self-                
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Supplemental/                            order only the Obey                  
                                  Rescinding                               substitute.                          
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
                                  Authority.                                                                    
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Moratorium.                              Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                                                           Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Flexibility.                                                                  
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive; 12 hr.                1D.
                                  Protection Act.                          time cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Requires                 
                                                                           Members to pre-print                 
                                                                           their amendments in                  
                                                                           the Record prior to                  
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration for                    
                                                                           amendment, waives                    
                                                                           germaneness and                      
                                                                           budget act points of                 
                                                                           order as well as                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           concerning                           
                                                                           appropriating on a                   
                                                                           legislative bill                     
                                                                           against the committee                
                                                                           substitute used as                   
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive; 8 hr.                 1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                        time cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference; Makes in                 
                                                                           order the Wyden                      
                                                                           amendment and waives                 
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           it.                                  
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive; 7 hr.                N/A.
                                  Accountability                           time cap on                          
                                  Act of 1995.                             amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive; makes in          8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                         order only 15 germane                
                                  Act.                                     amendments and denies                
                                                                           64 germane amendments                
                                                                           from being considered.               
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive; Combines             N/A.
                                  Supplemental                             emergency H.R. 1158 &                
                                  Appropriations                           nonemergency 1159 and                
                                  and Rescissions.                         strikes the abortion                 
                                                                           provision; makes in                  
                                                                           order only pre-                      
                                                                           printed amendments                   
                                                                           that include offsets                 
                                                                           within the same                      
                                                                           chapter (deeper cuts                 
                                                                           in programs already                  
                                                                           cut); waives points                  
                                                                           of order against                     
                                                                           three amendments;                    
                                                                           waives cl 2 of rule                  
                                                                           XXI against the bill,                
                                                                           cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of                
                                                                           rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           substitute; waives cl                
                                                                           2(e) od rule XXI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments in the                    
                                                                           Record; 10 hr time                   
                                                                           cap on amendments. 30                
                                                                           minutes debate on                    
                                                                           each amendment.                      
H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive; Makes in           1D; 3R
                                                                           order only 4                         
                                                                           amendments considered                
                                                                           under a ``Queen of                   
                                                                           the Hill'' procedure                 
                                                                           and denies 21 germane                
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered.                          
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive; Makes in         5D; 26R.
                                                                           order only 31                        
                                                                           perfecting amendments                
                                                                           and two substitutes;                 
                                                                           Denies 130 germane                   
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered; The                      
                                                                           substitutes are to be                
                                                                           considered under a                   
                                                                           ``Queen of the Hill''                
                                                                           procedure; All points                
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive; Self                  1D.
                                  America Tax                              Executes language                    
                                  Relief Act of                            that makes tax cuts                  
                                  1995.                                    contingent on the                    
                                                                           adoption of a                        
                                                                           balanced budget plan                 
                                                                           and strikes section                  
                                                                           3006. Makes in order                 
                                                                           only one substitute.                 
                                                                           Waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           bill, substitute made                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text and Gephardt                    
                                                                           substitute.                          

[[Page H 12004]]
                                                                                                                
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive; waives cl             1D.
                                  Extension.                               2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes H.R. 1391 in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the Dingell                     
                                                                           substitute; allows                   
                                                                           Commerce Committee to                
                                                                           file a report on the                 
                                                                           bill at any time.                    
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee substitute;                
                                                                           waives cl 5(a) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute.                
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference;                     
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f) and 602(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act                       
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI, cl                 
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI and                 
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Makes in                 
                                                                           order Shuster                        
                                                                           substitute as first                  
                                                                           order of business.                   
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
                                  Hatchery                                                                      
                                  Production                                                                    
                                  Facility.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive; Makes in          3D; 1R.
                                                                           order 4 substitutes                  
                                                                           under regular order;                 
                                                                           Gephardt, Neumann/                   
                                                                           Solomon, Payne/Owens,                
                                                                           President's Budget if                
                                                                           printed in Record on                 
                                                                           5/17/95; waives all                  
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against substitutes                  
                                                                           and concurrent                       
                                                                           resolution; suspends                 
                                                                           application of Rule                  
                                                                           XLIX with respect to                 
                                                                           the resolution; self-                
                                                                           executes Agriculture                 
                                                                           language.                            
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive; Requires             N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                         amendments to be                     
                                  1995.                                    printed in the Record                
                                                                           prior to their                       
                                                                           consideration; 10 hr.                
                                                                           time cap; waives cl                  
                                                                           2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Also                  
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f), 303(a),                      
                                                                           308(a) and 402(a)                    
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee amendment                  
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives cl 5(a)                 
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the amendment;                       
                                                                           amendment                            
                                                                           consideration is                     
                                                                           closed at 2:30 p.m.                  
                                                                           on May 25, 1995. Self-               
                                                                           executes provision                   
                                                                           which removes section                
                                                                           2210 from the bill.                  
                                                                           This was done at the                 
                                                                           request of the Budget                
                                                                           Committee.                           
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive; Makes in      36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization Act                        order only the            Bipartisan.
                                  FY 1996.                                 amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill,                    
                                                                           substitute and                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Gives the                
                                                                           Chairman en bloc                     
                                                                           authority. Self-                     
                                                                           executes a provision                 
                                                                           which strikes section                
                                                                           807 of the bill;                     
                                                                           provides for an                      
                                                                           additional 30 min. of                
                                                                           debate on Nunn-Lugar                 
                                                                           section; Allows Mr.                  
                                                                           Clinger to offer a                   
                                                                           modification of his                  
                                                                           amendment with the                   
                                                                           concurrence of Ms.                   
                                                                           Collins.                             
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Construction                             cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                  Appropriations;                          against the bill; 1                  
                                  FY 1996.                                 hr. general debate;                  
                                                                           Uses House passed                    
                                                                           budget numbers as                    
                                                                           threshold for                        
                                                                           spending amounts                     
                                                                           pending passage of                   
                                                                           Budget.                              
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive; Makes in        5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                          order only 11             Bipartisan.
                                                                           amendments; waives                   
                                                                           sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the bill                 
                                                                           and cl. 2 and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill. All points                 
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open; waives cl. 2,               N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 5(b), and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Gilman                     
                                                                           amendments as first                  
                                                                           order of business;                   
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendments; if                       
                                                                           adopted they will be                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl. 2 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority (Hall)                      
                                                                           (Menendez) (Goss)                    
                                                                           (Smith, NJ).                         
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes in order the                   
                                                                           Shuster amendment as                 
                                                                           the first order of                   
                                                                           business; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; if adopted                
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as original text. Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed; provides one              N/A.
                                  Amendment to                             hour of general                      
                                  Permit Congress                          debate and one motion                
                                  and States to                            to recommit with or                  
                                  Prohibit the                             without instructions;                
                                  Physical                                 if there are                         
                                  Desecration of                           instructions, the MO                 
                                  the American Flag.                       is debatable for 1 hr.               
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                                                           for consideration of                 
                                                                           the bill in the                      
                                                                           House; Permits the                   
                                                                           Chairman of the                      
                                                                           Appropriations                       
                                                                           Committee to offer                   
                                                                           one amendment which                  
                                                                           is unamendable;                      
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment.                           
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for further                          
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the four                        
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the rules report (20                 
                                                                           min each). Waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Prohibits                
                                                                           intervening motions                  
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole; Provides                  
                                                                           for an automatic rise                
                                                                           and report following                 
                                                                           the disposition of                   
                                                                           the amendments.                      
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open; Makes in order              N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                         the Resources                        
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           in the nature of a                   
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides a                 
                                                                           Senate hook-up with                  
                                                                           S. 395.                              
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Pre-                       
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title..                              
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Provides                   
                                                                           that the amendment in                
                                                                           part 1 of the report                 
                                                                           is the first                         
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as base text (30                     
                                                                           min); waives all                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Klug and                 
                                                                           Davis amendments; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title.                            
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive; 3 hours               ID.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                        of general debate;                   
                                  on Bosnia.                               Makes in order an                    
                                                                           amendment to be                      
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee (1 hr); If                  
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           has instructions it                  
                                                                           can only be offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee.                
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           and section 306 of                   
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; self-                      
                                                                           executes a strike of                 
                                                                           sections 8021 and                    
                                                                           8024 of the bill as                  
                                                                           requested by the                     
                                                                           Budget Committee; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive; waives        2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                 sec. 302(f) of the          partisan.
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Commerce                         
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           as original text and                 
                                                                           waives sec. 302(f) of                
                                                                           the Budget Act and                   
                                                                           cl. 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Makes in                  
                                                                           order the Bliely                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min) as                
                                                                           the first order of                   
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be original                  
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the amendments                  
                                                                           printed in the report                
                                                                           and waives all points                
                                                                           of order against the                 
                                                                           amendments; provides                 
                                                                           a Senate hook-up with                
                                                                           S. 652.                              
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act and cl                
                                                                           2 and cl 6 of rule                   
                                                                           XXI; provides that                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; self-                     
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment;                 
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H.Res. 187           Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f), 306 and                      
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act; waives clauses 2                
                                                                           and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; provides                  
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; self-                      
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           and makes NEA funding                
                                                                           subject to House                     
                                                                           passed authorization;                
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open; waives clauses 2            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; Makes Skeen                
                                                                           amendment first order                
                                                                           of business, if                      
                                                                           adopted the amendment                
                                                                           will be considered as                
                                                                           base text (10 min.);                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for the further                      
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; allows only                    
                                                                           amendments pre-                      
                                                                           printed before July                  
                                                                           14th to be                           
                                                                           considered; limits                   
                                                                           motions to rise.                     
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; Pre-printing                  
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  for China.                               for consideration in                 
                                                                           the House of H.R.                    
                                                                           2058 (90 min.) And                   
                                                                           H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).                 
                                                                           Waives certain                       
                                                                           provisions of the                    
                                                                           Trade Act.                           
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open; waives cl. 3 0f             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          rule XIII and section                
                                                                           401 (a) of the CBA                   
                                                                           against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; waives                  
                                                                           cl. 6 and cl. 2 of                   
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           provisions in the                    
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Clinger/Solomon                  
                                                                           amendment waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the amendment                
                                                                           (Line Item Veto);                    
                                                                           provides the bill be                 
                                                                           read by title; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority..                           
                                                                              *RULE AMENDED*                    
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open; Provides that                N/A
                                  Appropriations                           the first order of                   
                                  Act.                                     business will be the                 
                                                                           managers amendments                  
                                                                           (10 min), if adopted                 
                                                                           they will be                         
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against certain                      
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open; 2 hr of gen.                 N/A
                                  Targeted                                 debate. makes in                     
                                  Investments.                             order the committee                  
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text.                       
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive; waives                N/A
                                  Authorization.                           sections 302(f),                     
                                                                           308(a) and 401(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act. Makes                
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           as modified by Govt.                 
                                                                           Reform amend                         
                                                                           (striking sec. 505)                  
                                                                           and an amendment                     
                                                                           striking title VII.                  
                                                                           Cl 7 of rule XVI and                 
                                                                           cl 5(a) of rule XXI                  
                                                                           are waived against                   
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           401(b) of the CBA are                
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Amendments must also                 
                                                                           be pre-printed in the                
                                                                           Congressional record.                
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open; waives cl 7 of               N/A
                                  Lock Box.                                rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           made in order as                     
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            

[[Page H 12005]]
                                                                                                                
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open; waives sections              N/A
                                  Acquisition                              302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                  Reform Act of                            the Budget Act                       
                                  1995.                                    against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; bill                    
                                                                           will be read by                      
                                                                           title; waives cl 5(a)                
                                                                           of rule XXI and                      
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open; waives section               N/A
                                  Reform Workforce                         302(f) and 401(b) of                 
                                  Development and                          the Budget Act                       
                                  Literacy Programs                        against the                          
                                  Act (CAREERS).                           substitute made in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text (H.R. 2332), cl.                
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI is                  
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           provides for                         
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           managers amendment                   
                                                                           (10 min.) If adopted,                
                                                                           it is considered as                  
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open; waives section               N/A
                                  System                                   302(f) of the Budget                 
                                  Designation Act                          Act against                          
                                  of 1995.                                 consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes H.R. 2349                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives section                 
                                                                           302(f) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the                      
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           for the consideration                
                                                                           of a managers                        
                                                                           amendment (10 min) If                
                                                                           adopted, it is                       
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive; waives cl           2R/2D
                                  Democratic                               2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Solidarity Act of                        against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order H.R. 2347 as                   
                                                                           base text; waives cl                 
                                                                           7 of rule XVI against                
                                                                           the substitute; Makes                
                                                                           Hamilton amendment                   
                                                                           the first amendment                  
                                                                           to be considered (1                  
                                                                           hr). Makes in order                  
                                                                           only amendments                      
                                                                           printed in the report.               
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open; waives cl                    N/A
                                  Employees and                            2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI                
                                  managers Act of                          against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order the committee                  
                                                                           amendment as original                
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           get priority.                        
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open; makes in order a             N/A
                                  Certain                                  committee amendment                  
                                  Injunctions.                             as original text; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open; makes in order a             N/A
                                  Space Station                            committee amendment                  
                                  Authorization Act                        as original text; pre-               
                                  of 1995.                                 printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed; Provides for    ..............
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open; self-executes a              N/A
                                  Science                                  provision striking                   
                                  Authorization Act                        section 304(b)(3) of                 
                                  of 1995.                                 the bill (Commerce                   
                                                                           Committee request);                  
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive; waives cl              1D
                                  Certain                                  2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Sentencing                               against the bill's                   
                                  Guideline                                consideration; makes                 
                                  Amendments.                              in order the text of                 
                                                                           the Senate bill S.                   
                                                                           1254 as original                     
                                                                           text; Makes in order                 
                                                                           only a Conyers                       
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           a senate hook-up                     
                                                                           after adoption.                      
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive; waives                 1D
                                  Preservation Act.                        all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the text of                 
                                                                           H.R. 2485 as original                
                                                                           text; waives all                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against H.R. 2485;                   
                                                                           makes in order only                  
                                                                           an amendment offered                 
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee;                
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes).                      
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive; provides              N/A
                                  Appropriations                           for consideration of                 
                                  Bill.                                    the bill in the House.               
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive; makes in               1D
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                   order H.R. 2517 as                   
                                  Reconciliation                           original text; waives                
                                  Social Security                          all pints of order                   
                                  Earnings Test                            against the bill;                    
                                  Reform.                                  Makes in order only                  
                                                                           H.R. 2530 as an                      
                                                                           amendment only if                    
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes).                      
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................             N/A
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive; waives                N/A
                                  Appropriations FY                        all points of order                  
                                  1996.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walsh                   
                                                                           amendment as the                     
                                                                           first order of                       
                                                                           business (10 min); if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl 2 and                
                                                                           6 of rule XXI against                
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Bonilla,                   
                                                                           Gunderson and                        
                                                                           Hostettler amendments                
                                                                           (30 min); waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; debate on                
                                                                           any further                          
                                                                           amendments is limited                
                                                                           to 30 min. each.                     
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed; Provides for               N/A
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive; Provides              5R 
                                  in the Statutory                         for the immediate                    
                                  Debt Limit.                              consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee; self-                 
                                                                           executes 4 amendments                
                                                                           in the rule; Solomon,                
                                                                           Medicare Coverage of                 
                                                                           Certain Anti-Cancer                  
                                                                           Drug Treatments,                     
                                                                           Habeas Corpus Reform,                
                                                                           Chrysler (MI); makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walker                  
                                                                           amend (40 min) on                    
                                                                           regulatory reform.                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 57% restrictive; 43% open. *** Restrictive     
  rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open
  and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the     
  House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the         
  Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. **** Not included in 
  this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 
  440.                                                                                                          


  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado for yielding time to me, a hard working and hard charging 
member of the Committee on Rules. I commend him and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules for 
their tireless efforts to bring balance to our Federal budget. That is 
what this debate is about. I know we have gotten off the track here, 
but that is what this debate is about. It is about money. It is about 
America and it is about taxpayers.
  Other than some spending-addicted liberals, there are very few 
Members who take pleasure in voting to raise the debt limit because it 
says to the United States of America, we are failing in our 
responsibilities here. In casting such a vote today, which I have never 
voted for one of these things before, Congress has got to admit that to 
date we have been unable to control our Federal penchant for spending 
beyond our means. It is like endlessly increasing the credit limit on a 
credit card when you cannot pay off the debt you have already 
accumulated, and Americans go to jail for doing things like that.
  In past years the Democratic leadership has sought to protect their 
Members from having to cast this tough vote, burying the debt limit 
extension deep in the budget resolution because there was no end in 
sight to the red ink they could pour out. But here, as in so many other 
ways, the new leadership in the House has courageously charted a 
different course, a more responsible course. We are today casting this 
tough vote out in the open with nowhere to hide, right here in the 
sunshine. We owe it to the American people to tell the truth about the 
mess that the liberal spenders have put us in, and we have to fix it 
and we have to plan to do it.
  As we come clean on the debt, we are also cementing our commitment on 
the majority side anyway that such debt extensions will in 7 years 
become a thing of the past, because we are going to stop spending more 
money than we have. We are going to balance our budget, and we are 
going to do it by the year 2002.
  This bill today will allow our leaders to work with the White House, 
if, of course, the White House wants to negotiate with us. It allows us 
to make the necessary down payment on our children's future by cutting 
spending, by freeing up taxpayers' dollars for investment in 
productivity and jobs and by shrinking the bloated Federal bureaucracy. 
One of our colleagues on the other side said we are trying to hide the 
dismantling of the Commerce Department. Wrong; we are shouting it from 
the roof tops. It is time. It is time to do this thing.
  Incredibly, some of the rhetoric suggests that many of our Democratic 
friends still do not get it. Nearly a century ago, one of this Nation's 
wisest leaders, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, and I quote:

       I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
     Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for 
     the reduction of the administration of our government to the 
     genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional 
     article, taking from the Federal Government the power of 
     borrowing.

  If Thomas Jefferson's view had prevailed, perhaps today we would not 
be more than $4.9 trillion in debt. Thomas Jefferson saw the public 
debt as ``the greatest of the dangers to be feared.''
  There were a lot of things to worry about when he was alive. His 
prescient comments should ring in Members' ears. We should past this 
temporary measure so we can get on with the business of paying down our 
debt once and for all.
  I urge support for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.

[[Page H 12006]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 200, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 778]

                               YEAS--220

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     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
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--200

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Archer
     Bateman
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Hunter
     Kasich
     Peterson (FL)
     Shaw
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1355

  Mr. STUDDS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________