[Pages H6096-H6104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

H. Res. 169

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for considerationation
of the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1996, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section
302(f) or 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall
be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI
are waived. No amendment shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against amendments printed in the report
are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
postpone until a time during future consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by
electronic device without intervening business, provided that
the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any
series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to find passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.

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

{time} 1040

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

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

{time} 1100

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

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

{time} 1115

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

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

FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*................ Compliance............. H. Res. 6 Closed...................... None.
H. Res. 6.............. Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5*................ Unfunded Mandates...... H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion adopted N/A.
over Democratic objection
in the Committee of the
Whole to limit debate on
section 4; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.J. Res. 2*........... Balanced Budget........ H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43............. Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2*................ Line Item Veto......... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665*.............. Victim Restitution Act H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666*.............. Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667*.............. Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Incarceration Act of on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668*.............. The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728*.............. Local Government Law H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Enforcement Block on amendments; Pre-printing
Grants. gets preference.
H.R. 7*................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Revitalization Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 729*.............. Death Penalty/Habeas... N/A Restrictive; brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr. time
cap on amendments.
S. 2................... Senate Compliance...... N/A Closed; Put on suspension None.
calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............... To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
the Health Insurance only the Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Self- waives all points of order;
Employed. Contains self-executing
provision.
H.R. 830*.............. The Paperwork Reduction H. Res. 91 Open........................ N/A.
Act.
H.R. 889............... Emergency Supplemental/ H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
Rescinding Certain only the Obey substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450*.............. Regulatory Moratorium.. H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 1022*............. Risk Assessment........ H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments.
H.R. 926*.............. Regulatory Flexibility. H. Res. 100 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 925*.............. Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap 1D.
Protection Act. on amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print their
amendments in the Record
prior to the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and budget act
points of order as well as
points of order concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill against
the committee substitute
used as base text.
H.R. 1058*............. Securities Litigation H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap 1D.
Reform Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference; Makes in
order the Wyden amendment
and waives germaneness
against it.
H.R. 988*.............. The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap N/A.
Accountability Act of on amendments; Pre-printing
1995. gets preference.
H.R. 956*.............. Product Liability and H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in order 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. only 15 germane amendments
and denies 64 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 1158.............. Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed amendments
that include offsets within
the same chapter (deeper
cuts in programs already
cut); waives points of
order against three
amendments; waives cl 2 of
rule XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule
XVI against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) of rule XXI
against the amendments in
the Record; 10 hr time cap
on amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.......... Term Limits............ H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in order 1D; 3R
only 4 amendments
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure and
denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*................ Welfare Reform......... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in order 5D; 26R
only 31 perfecting
amendments and two
substitutes; Denies 130
germane amendments from
being considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure;
All points of order are
waived against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*............. Family Privacy Act..... H. Res. 125 Open........................ N/A
H.R. 660*.............. Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open........................ N/A
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*............. The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self Executes 1D
America Tax Relief Act language that makes tax
of 1995. cuts contingent on the
adoption of a balanced
budget plan and strikes
section 3006. Makes in
order only one substitute.
Waives all points of order
against the bill,
substitute made in order as
original text and Gephardt
substitute..
H.R. 483............... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI against
the bill; makes H.R. 1391
in order as original text;
makes in order only the
Dingell substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to file
a report on the bill at any
time.
H.R. 655............... Hydrogen Future Act.... H. Res 136 Open........................ N/A.
[[Page H 6103]]

H.R. 1361.............. Coast Guard H. Res 139 Open; waives sections 302(f) N/A.
Authorization. and 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives c1 5(a) of rule XXI
against the committee
substitute.
H.R. 961............... Clean Water Act........ H. Res 140 Open; pre-printing gets N/A.
preference; waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of the
Budget Act against the
bill's consideration;
waives c1 7 of rule XVI, c1
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against the
committee substitute. Makes
in order Shuster substitute
as first order of business.
H.R. 535............... Corning National Fish H. Res. 144 Open........................ N/A.
Hatchery Conveyance
Act.
H.R. 584............... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open........................ N/A.
Fairport National Fish
Hatchery of the State
of Iowa.
H.R. 614............... Conveyance of the New H. Res. 146 Open........................ N/A.
London National Fish
Hatchery Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67........ Budget Resolution...... H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in order 3D;1R
4 substitutes under regular
order; Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on 5/17/
95; waives all points of
order against substitutes
and concurrent resolution;
suspends application of
Rule XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language.
H.R. 1561.............. American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A
Interests Act of 1995. amendments to be printed in
the Record prior to their
consideration; 10 hr. time
cap; waives cl 2(1)(6) of
rule XI against the bill's
consideration; Also waives
sections 302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a) against
the bill's consideration
and the committee amendment
in order as original text;
waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI
against the amendment;
amendment consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m. on May
25, 1995. Self-executes
provision which removes
section 2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530.............. National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in order 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act FY only the amendments printed Bipartisan
1996. in the report; waives all
points of order against the
bill, substitute and
amendments printed in the
report. Gives the Chairman
en bloc authority. Self-
executes a provision which
strikes section 807 of the
bill; provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr. Clinger
to offer a modification of
his amendment with the
concurrence of Ms. Collins.
H.R. 1817.............. Military Construction H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 ..............
Appropriations; FY of rule XXI against the
1996. bill; 1 hr. general debate;
Uses House passed budget
numbers as threshold for
spending amounts pending
passage of Budget.
H.R. 1854.............. Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in order 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. only 11 amendments; waives Bipartisan
sections 302(f) and 308(a)
of the Budget Act against
the bill and cl. 2 and cl.
6 of rule XXI against the
bill. All points of order
are waived against the
amendments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 65% restrictive; 35% open. *** Restrictive
rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open
and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the
House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the
Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. **** Not included in
this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R.
440.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Roemer] bring up that very important subject which we have permitted to
be addressed by virtue of making in order an amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] that will allow Members to
return unspent portions of their office expense accounts to the
Treasury to be used specifically for deficit reduction.
This is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker. It has been a rule that has been
well thought through. There has been very close work and cooperation
between the Legislative Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on House Oversight, and the Committee on
Rules. I think it is a good piece of work that we have brought before
the floor today, before our colleagues today, and I would urge that our
colleagues adopt this rule and move this bill onto the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a table reflecting the
amendment process under special rules reported by the Committee on
Rules.

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of June 19, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 29 73
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 11 27
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................ 104 100 40 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of June 19, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
95).
.................. .................. H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt.....
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/13/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
[[Page H 6104]]

H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/
95)
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... A: 414-4 (5/10/95)
H. Res. 144 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 535............ Fish Hatchery--Arkansas.. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 145 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 584............ Fish Hatchery--Iowa...... A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 146 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 614............ Fish Hatchery--Minnesota. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 149 (5/16/ MC.................. H. Con. Res. 67..... Budget Resolution FY 1996 PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
95). 168 (5/17/95)
H. Res. 155 (5/22/ MO.................. H.R. 1561........... American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
95). Interests Act. 95)
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) MC.................. H.R. 1530........... Nattional Defense Auth. PQ: 233-183 (6/13/
FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 167 (6/15/ O................... H.R. 1617........... MilCon Appropriations FY PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
95). 1996. 155 (6/16/95)
H. Res. 169 (6/19/ MC.................. H.R. 1854........... Leg. Branch Approps. FY ...................
95). 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further
proceedings on this question are postponed until completion of action
on House Resolution 168.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I was
objecting to a vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes that.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

____________________