[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8834-H8852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCKBOX ACT OF 1995

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 218 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
  
[[Page H 8835]]


                              H. Res. 218

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1162) to establish a Deficit Reduction Trust 
     Fund and provide for the downward adjustment of discretionary 
     spending limits in appropriation bills. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Rules. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Rules. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 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. Speaker, this is an open rule, providing for the consideration of 
H.R. 1162, the Deficit Reduction Lockbox Act of 1995, an important 
budget tool to hold us accountable for making sure that spending cuts 
translate into savings for the American people. I am delighted that we 
are following through on the promise of considering the lockbox as a 
freestanding bill. As Members know, this House approved the lockbox as 
an amendment to the Labor-HHS spending bill in early August. If it were 
up to the clear majority of this House, lockbox would be the law of the 
land. But of course we know that ours is a bicameral legislature, and 
we must secure enactment of our good ideas by convincing our friends in 
the other body to concur. In sending them lockbox legislation as part 
of a spending bill and a freestanding bill, we are sending a clear 
signal that we are committed to lockbox and we want them to act.
  Although there was much agreement on the Rules Committee proposal, we 
do expect several issues to be raised during the debate. The open 
amendment process will provide Members the chance to air any remaining 
concerns they have in a full and fair way. Once again the rule provides 
the option for priority recognition to those Members who have had their 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides an hour of general debate and makes 
in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules. 
The rule also provides that the amendment considered as read and open 
to amendment at any point.
  On the advice of the Parliamentarian, this rule waives clause 7 of 
rule XVI against consideration of the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. The reason for this germaneness waiver is somewhat 
technical. The original bill as introduced by Mr. Crapo in March 
proposed a lockbox mechanism called a trust fund to be maintained in 
the Treasury, while the Rules Committee has recommended a lockbox 
mechanism called an account to be maintained by the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  The end result of this is the same: we want to ensure that a cut is 
really a cut; that when we say we are saving money by spending less in 
appropriations bills we follow through on that commitment. The change 
in terminology apparently raises some germaneness questions but the 
outcome is the same. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides one 
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I would like to commend Mr. Crapo, the entire bipartisan lockbox 
team, our Rules Committee Chairman, the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Appropriations Committee for 
the enormous cooperative effort that went into the lockbox.
  The lockbox team spirit could be a model for how this place can and 
should operate to do the Nation's business. This is a good rule, a good 
bill, and I'm proud to have played a part in getting us to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record material from the Committee on 
Rules:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                           [As of September 12, 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                 45                 74
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 14                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 61                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 September 12, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    

[[Page H 8836]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95)               
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95)               
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95)               
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95) 
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      A: 255-156 (8/2/95)
                                                                   1995.                                        
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     A: 323-104 (8/2/95)
                                                                   1996.                                        
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)  O...................  H.R. 1594...........  Economically Targeted      A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Investments.               95)               
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1655...........  Intelligence               A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Authorization FY 1996.     95)               
H. Res. 218 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1162...........  Deficit Reduction Lockbox  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 219 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1670...........  Federal Acquisition        ...................
 95).                                                              Reform Act.                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. But my support for this 
rule does not mean I wholeheartedly support the version of lockbox 
reported from the Committee on Rules.
  While I will vote for passage of H.R. 1162, I believe there are 
significant improvements that should be made to this proposal but 
which, I fear, have little chance of passage on the floor. Those 
improvements would give this legislation real teeth and if enacted 
would take a significant bite out of discretionary spending for fiscal 
year 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, as of today, only one appropriations bill remains to be 
considered by the House. Short of the adoption of an amendment which 
will be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
appropriation for the District of Columbia would be the only one of the 
13 appropriations bills to be subjected to the lockbox process 
contained in this bill. Yet, the House clearly expressed its support 
for locking away savings from appropriations bills early this year when 
a lockbox amendment was added to the emergency supplemental by a vote 
of 421 to 1. That enactment provided that the net reduction of funds 
from the supplemental was to be used exclusively for deficit reduction.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in the months since the House considered 
the first supplemental, the lockbox has become more of a storage box. 
The version of the legislation originally introduced by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlelady from California [Ms. 
Harman], as well as the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], no longer 
mandates net reductions from appropriations bills be dedicated 
exclusively to deficit reduction. Rather, this version has become more 
of an accounting tool.
  Now, I would like to commend my colleague from Florida, Mr. Goss, the 
chairman of the Legislative and Budget Process Subcommittee, for his 
work on this legislation. While Mr. Brewster and Ms. Harman appeared 
repeatedly before the Rules Committee in an attempt to offer their 
version of lockbox, the Rules Committee did make and follow through on 
a commitment to send some lockbox legislation to the floor. The 
committee recommendation may very well be the best version of the 
proposal we are going to get, but, as I said at the outset, this 
legislation can and should be improved to ensure that it will do what 
the original cosponsors of lockbox had intended to do.
  First, it is my intention to offer an amendment which will make this 
bill retroactive so that the net reductions from each of the 
appropriations bills for fiscal year 1996 will be subjected to the 
lockbox process. However, because I intend to take advantage of the 
family friendly atmosphere in the House and take my middle daughter to 
college, I may not be present to personally offer this amendment. It is 
my hope that the amendment will be offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson], and that the House will support this important 
improvement to this bill.
  Second, the gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman] intends to offer 
an amendment which will capture savings in future years. As we all 
know, there are many Federal programs and projects with spendout rates 
which increase dramatically after the first or second year. 
Unfortunately, as the bill was reported from the Rules Committee, these 
savings can only be captured for the fiscal year in question and 
consequently savings in the outyears mighty well be reallocated to 
other programs. During the markup of this bill, the committee Democrats 
offered a version of Ms. Harman's amendment, but as matters turned out, 
the amendment was defeated by the Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, it 
seems to me that Ms. Harman's proposal makes a great deal of sense: 
Let's not allow savings to slip through the lock box only to be spent 
elsewhere.

[[Page H 8837]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the fact that this rule 
provides a germaneness waiver for the committee substitute. It seems to 
me that the only reason this waiver is necessary is because the final 
product is so very different from what was originally introduced that 
it does not bear enough resemblance to be considered germane. While I 
congratulate the gentleman from Florida for his efforts to bring this 
bill to the floor, I think Members should understand what this waiver 
really means. I believe the fact that the committee substitute is a 
departure from the original intent only reinforces the need to adopt my 
amendment and that of Ms. Harman. Without those two additions to this 
bill, I am afraid we are merely playing a shell game with ourselves and 
with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start off by saying who gives a hoot who gets 
credit for what, as long as we pass this lockbox and we start getting 
credit for really reducing the deficit around here?
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and Rules Committee colleague 
from Florida for yielding me the time, and commend him as chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process for his outstanding 
efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, today should be a proud moment in this House, not merely 
because today we will reform the budget process or even that we will 
create a mechanism to assist our efforts at deficit reduction. But 
because today we are debating a comprehensive piece of legislation that 
truly represents bipartisan compromise, ingenuity, and resourcefulness.
  Indeed right from the beginning this issue has been one of a 
bipartisan thrust, begun through the efforts of our friends such as 
Mike Crapo of Idaho, Ms. Harman of California, Mr. Royce of California, 
and Mr. Brewster of Oklahoma, to mention just a few.
  Despite their unsuccessful efforts during the last Congress, these 
Members along with many others from both sides of the aisle continued 
their full court press since the beginning of this Congress.
  And Mr. Speaker, these efforts have paid off. Today we are 
considering the deficit reduction lockbox bill under an open process 
providing every Member of this body with an interest or even a concern 
with this legislation the opportunity to participate.
  H.R. 1162 is responsible budget process reform that will continue to 
gear the entire system toward spending restraint rather than spending 
more.
  While the lockbox is like the line-item veto and the balanced budget 
amendment in that it is only process reform, it will help to raise the 
accountability standard in this body, by forcing the tough choices, 
like those we made in the budget resolution earlier this year and those 
we will again make in the reconciliation process over the next few 
months.
  This has been an open process from the very beginning and this open 
rule only continues the outstanding democratic process utilized during 
the development and consideration of this issue.
  With that I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman very much for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the rule and 
obviously want to commend the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the 
bill's sponsor, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], and the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton], all of whom have been doing very hard work in bringing 
this important bill to the floor.
  The concept of the lockbox is very simple. It makes basic common 
sense. In essence it provides that amendments to cut spending actually 
produce savings. I think I was as dismayed as many people to realize 
that when we often go through agony to get savings, those savings are 
not real; they in fact are then used for other purposes. Most taxpayers 
would agree and believe that when Congress agrees to eliminate $5 
billion for the space station or $7 billion for the super collider, 
that the money remains in the Treasury.

                              {time}  1330

  Most would agree and believe that. But in fact under existing law or 
current law those tax dollars go back into the pot and can be 
reallocated or spent later in the same year. So I think everyone would 
have to agree that is an odd process at any time, and the practice 
frankly is just absolutely insupportable in an era of $200 billion 
deficits and $5 trillion national debt.
  This bill, H.R. 1162, will change Federal spending law to ensure that 
a dollar saved is in fact a dollar saved, that when Congress votes to 
cut funding for a Federal program, the money will not be spent. The 
bill creates 13 separate savings accounts to match the 13 annual 
appropriations bills and requires that the average savings of each 
House- and Senate-passed spending bill be placed in that special 
savings account. The money would be used solely for deficit reduction 
and could not be made available for any future spending for any purpose 
whatever.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill is an important step on the long road toward 
restoring Federal fiscal sanity and responsible congressional spending. 
It really for the first time permits lawmakers to choose savings over 
spending and allows us for the very first time to honestly tell our 
constituents that a dollar saved is a dollar saved.
  So as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
which has jurisdiction on this matter, I would indicate that my belief 
that this is a good bill and long overdue. I would urge the adoption of 
the rule and a vote in favor of the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], who has been much discussed as the 
author of this and deserves a great deal of credit.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to say I appreciate the 
support that has been brought by both sides of the aisle and by so many 
Members to get us to this point today.
  This is a very important day for the House of Representatives, not 
just because we are going in a few minutes to debate a very critical 
reform to the budget process but because it is a day when this 
institution is working the way that was intended by our Founding 
Fathers. It is working in a way that shows the kind of integrity and 
the kind of good work that can be done when the Members of Congress 
work together.
  At a time in our history when so often there are negative stories in 
the media about how the Congress works, today we have a good strong 
example of how the system should work. Why do I say that? First of all, 
Mr. Speaker, we are here under an open rule. For so long we have been 
deprived in this Congress of having the opportunity to have open and 
free debate, where critical ideas are brought forward and debated and 
those who object to them can have the opportunity under an open rule to 
bring their objections and have those objections debated and voted on 
in an open recorded vote.
  Second, it is an important day for this institution because this bill 
was brought forward to reform the system in a bipartisan fashion. I do 
not think we are going to see a lot of partisan bickering here today 
because it is a good idea that needs to be put into law. Although there 
may be some discussions about just what the fine tuning should be, we 
are going to see strong support for this legislation.
  For about 2 years now we have been working to make sure that this 
legislation moves forward and that this critical reform that is 
necessary is put into place. I can still remember, it has been a little 
bit more than 2 years ago now that I was sitting right here on this 
floor, and I heard two Members debating about a major proposal to cut 
one of our budgets. One of the Members said to the other: You know, 
even if we cut this budget, this spending will not be reduced and the 
deficit will not be reduced. 

[[Page H 8838]]

  The other Member acknowledged that. That perked up my interest. I 
then started looking into it. Indeed, the budget system we have is one 
in which, even when Congress cuts a specific program or project, all 
that happens is that specific program or project is eliminated or 
reduced, and the spending simply becomes unallocated until the 
conference committee meets to reallocate it, often to projects that 
never saw the light of day in a hearing.
  Today we will create a lockbox account in the House and send forward 
to the Senate an opportunity for us to pass into law a critical reform 
of our budget process that will help us to ensure that, when we make 
cuts, the cuts count.
  Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a hard process. It has taken us 2 
years to get to this point in the House. We are going to have to fight 
it hard when it gets to the other body as well. But the American people 
deserve no less. We must past this rule, then pass this legislation and 
take one more important step in terms of reforming the budget process 
of this Congress.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], who has also been one of the 
stalwarts of moving this legislation forward.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our government is running 
chronic $200 billion deficits at a time when we are $5 trillion in 
debt, with a devastating effect on our national savings rate, this 
reform for Government is critical.
  This is essentially the same bill that was approved by the House on 
August 2, as an amendment to the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations 
bill. It is similar to the House resolution I offered earlier this 
year. The lockbox provision in that Labor HHS bill was adopted by a 
vote of 373 to 52, better than 85 percent of this House.
  Basically, the bill establishes a series of lockboxes in every 
appropriations measure considered by this House to ensure that savings 
made from amendments on this floor will go toward reducing the Federal 
deficit. As many of us have come to realize, unfortunately, this is not 
now the case, since savings realized from amendments to appropriations 
bills may be used for other funds or projects in that bill or other 
appropriations bills.
  A good example of that was last year in this Congress when $100 
million was eliminated by an amendment on this floor from the ASRM 
program, but we later found out that those funds wound up in other 
programs rather than going to deficit reduction.
  I would just like to share that, as a cochairman of the porkbusters 
coalition in this Congress, I would hate to see something like that 
happen again. I would hate to see what happened last year happen again.
  This bill will ensure that it does not. This bill will ensure that 
the average savings between the cuts that we make on the House floor 
and the cuts made over on the Senate floor will go in conference to a 
lockbox, to the Treasury for the purpose of deficit reduction.
  I will also share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is an 
open rule worthy of everyone's support. I know that my constituents 
support this measure, as do the Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Concord 
Coalition, and other taxpayer groups. It is an important and workable 
first step towards making this body more responsive and accountable to 
the people who elect them.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote of every Member.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Pursuant to House Resolution 
218 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1162.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and requests the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1339


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1162) to establish a Deficit Reduction Trust Fund and provide for the 
downward adjustment of discretionary spending limits in appropriations 
bills, with Mr. Riggs, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). Pursuant to the rule, the bill 
is considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] each will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring forward for the House's 
consideration H.R. 1162, the Deficit Reduction Lockbox Act of 1995. The 
concept behind the lockbox is deceptively simple: It says that when the 
House votes to cut spending we will not spend those savings elsewhere. 
It says that a cut is really a cut and savings are really savings that 
can and will be used to reduce the deficit. It says that we will no 
longer play the shell game of cutting money with big fanfare one day 
and quietly reprogramming it another. And it says that we are going to 
hold ourselves accountable for what we do.
  I commend our colleague, Mike Crapo, and his bipartisan team of 
lockbox enforcers, who worked tirelessly to ensure that this day would 
come. Despite the simplicity of the concept, the practical application 
of lockbox proved more vexing than some might have thought. Working 
within the complexity of our current budget process was quite a 
challenge, but the lockbox team persevered through late night meetings 
and consultation with budget experts.
  We wanted to make sure we had teeth in our proposal while retaining 
enough flexibility for the appropriators to do the very difficult job 
we ask of them. And I'm proud to say that we have achieved that 
balance. H.R. 1162 as reported by the Rules Committee closely tracks 
language that 373 Members of this House already enthusiastically 
supported in the form of an amendment to the Labor/HHS spending bill 
just last month.
  Today's vote, which will hopefully be a reaffirmation of that 
commitment to lockbox, is designed to implement a two-track strategy in 
seeking to make lockbox the law of the land. We are, in effect, giving 
our friends in the other body two chances to do the right thing and 
adopt these lockbox provisions. H.R. 1162 as reported by our Rules 
Committee establishes lockbox balances to account for savings adopted 
through cutting amendments during floor consideration of spending 
bills. There will be a House lockbox balance and a Senate lockbox 
balance for each spending bill--and the appropriators will be bound to 
come up with savings splitting the difference between what the House 
and Senate have each proposed. The hammer to enforce this requirement--
and ensure that money saved in one bill is not later spent in another--
is a lowering of the overall spending total available to the 
appropriators. In this way we actually shrink the spending pie to 
reflect the lockbox.
  No one argues that this procedural change alone will resolve our 
tremendous budgetary imbalance. In fact, just about everyone recognizes 
that discretionary spending, to which the lockbox pertains, is not the 
big bear in the woods when it comes to our spending problems. But we 
ought not ask Americans to consider changes in entitlement programs 
until we have demonstrated that we are serious about cutting low-
priority, wasteful, or unnecessary programs. Lockbox really speaks to 
our credibility as we wage our battle for a balanced budget by the year 
2002. Please support H.R. 1162.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the principle behind H.R. 1162, 
and, given 

[[Page H 8839]]
the fact that this is the only version of lockbox the House will be 
able to consider, I intend to support the bill. I do, however, 
encourage Members to support two amendments which will be offered to 
that bill. I believe those amendments will significantly improve the 
legislation recommended by the Rules Committee and are deserving of 
strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Solomon, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Legislative and Budget Process for holding a markup on this bill. This 
year, as we went through the appropriations process, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman] 
came to the Rules Committee seeking to offer lockbox amendments to each 
appropriation bill. While it was unfortunate that the Rules Committee 
majority did not see fit to allow the House to consider the request of 
these distinguished Members, our chairman did made a commitment to them 
that the committee would hold a markup on lockbox legislation. And, on 
July 20 the committee met and reported this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to the markup, the committee Democrats were 
gratified that the Republican majority accepted a number of suggestions 
we made that we felt improved the chairman's mark circulated among our 
Members. However, the committee majority did not accept three important 
amendments offered by the committee Democrats. The first amendment 
related to out year savings. Because it is the intention of the 
gentlelady from California [Ms. Harman] to offer such an amendment 
today, let it suffice to say that this amendment is not in the least 
just a technicality. In fact, reducing statutory caps for budget 
authority and outlays in the outyears has a great deal to do with our 
ability to curb and reduce discretionary spending. If we are really 
serious about reducing this part of Government spending, I would urge 
support for the Harman amendment.
  Second, I will offer an amendment which would apply the provisions of 
the lockbox procedure to every appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996, not just those passed after engrossment of H.R. 1162. I offered 
this amendment to the lockbox legislation attached to the Labor/HHS 
appropriation and my amendment was rejected. I also offered it to the 
chairman's mark, but again, the amendment was rejected. If we are going 
to claim savings, then those savings should apply to every 
appropriations bill, and not just to Labor/HHS, DOD, and DC.
  Finally, we believe that the bill should have created a separate 
lockbox account into which savings resulting from spending cuts in 
individual appropriations bills would automatically be funneled. In 
that way, those funds could not be reallocated to other appropriations 
accounts and spent later. The committee bill, however, takes a 
fundamentally different approach, and while the committee did adopt an 
amendment which strengthens their original proposal by requiring OMB to 
reduce the discretionary caps for the fiscal year under consideration, 
we continue to believe that the creation of a separate lockbox account 
is an important part of proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Frost and Harman 
amendments in order that we can be sure that the tough choices we have 
had to and will continue to have to make will actually go to deficit 
reduction.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, again, it is a privilege to be here debating 
this important measure here today. Before I get into the substance of 
my remarks, I want to give some thanks to some of the people who have 
really been there when it counts, particularly to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] who is handling this measure for the 
Committee on Rules here today. They were there time and time again in 
the late night meetings and the negotiations that were necessary to 
help us move this legislation through the difficult political channels 
it had to be moved in order to get to the floor today.
  It is not easy to change a system that has been put into place over 
years and years, and just take it and change it overnight. I appreciate 
their support, and that of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] 
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who have been there in 
our bipartisan efforts for nearly 2 years now, working together to make 
this matter work. And that of so many of the other Members: the 
gentleman from California, Ed Royce, who is sitting here beside me and 
ready to speak in a few moments, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 
Zimmer; the freshman class who came in there this year and provided 
really the steam to move this reform forward, as we needed to have 
their strong support; the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, and so 
many others. The list goes on.
  The point I am trying to make is that this has been not only a strong 
effort by so many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who 
recognized that we need to reform our budget process, but that we have 
been able to put that effort together in the face of very strong 
political pressures.
  I want to go back and give just a little history. As I said, it has 
been just about 2 years since this process started, a little over 2 
years since I first became aware of the way the budget system worked, 
and did not allow our cuts to really count. At that time I introduced a 
bill that I called the ``make our cuts count'' legislation.
  Shortly after that, I found that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and some 
others they were working with were also involved in trying to address 
the same issues. As we met together to put our
 efforts together and come together in a bipartisan effort, we changed 
the name of this to the lockbox concept, something that has stuck and 
has helped people across America to understand that we are really 
trying to balance the budget.

  Not only did we develop a bipartisan commission here in Congress, we 
went out and found grassroots support across the country. I am proud to 
say today that this legislation is supported by the Concord Coalition, 
by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Citizens Against 
Government Waste, who I believe are going to make it a key vote, the 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, who I also believe are going to register 
this as a key vote, the National Taxpayers Union, the United We Stand 
organizations in different parts of the country, and others across this 
country who have recognized the need for this legislation, and have 
joined in our effort to develop the coalitions necessary at the 
grassroots level in this country to push this legislation forward.
  I can remember when I was first interviewed on this legislation, and 
the interviewer said, ``What kind of a chance do you really think you 
have, trying to get something like this through this Congress?'' I 
said, ``To be honest with you, not much of a chance, but we are going 
to keep fighting and we are going to make this thing happen, no matter 
how long it takes.'' Little did I know that just 1 year later, about 
1\1/2\ years later, we would be here on the floor, making sure that the 
legislation passed.
  Some may ask, why are we doing it again after we already did it on 
August 2? On August 2 we passed legislation attaching this to an 
appropriations bill. It has now become evident that that appropriations 
bill may be vetoed, so we are going on a separate track to have a dual 
approach to making sure this legislation passes by putting forth this 
independent legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a critical reform to our budget 
process. We must do it so Americans can count on this Congress, so the 
integrity of this institution is upheld, and when we say we are cutting 
the budget, those cuts go to deficit reduction. The American people can 
ask for no less. I am confident that today, this House will deliver 
them that kind of reform.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 

[[Page H 8840]]
  Frost], my colleague and friend, for yielding so much time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work that many of our colleagues 
have done to bring this legislation to the point where it is today, and 
I would particularly like to commend our chairman, Mr. Solomon, and Mr. 
Goss for their efforts in producing a measure that satisfies most of 
the concerns of both the lockbox proponents, and the members of the 
Appropriations Committee who, under this bill, will have to operate 
under a more difficult system for achieving final agreement on 
appropriations bills.
  However, I do not think that this deserves our support. I know from 
the previous vote we had on this measure last month, when it was 
offered as an amendment to an appropriations bill, that I am among a 
small minority of Members here who feel that way. But I am speaking out 
on this matter because I think it is important for us to consider the 
drawbacks of this measure.
  On the face of it, the lockbox proposal is an appealing idea--as its 
proponents describe it, it is a way to ensure that the savings produced 
by spending-cut amendments to appropriations bills are used to reduce 
the deficit, not to increase spending for other purposes.
  However, the only way to show that such savings are being used to 
reduce the deficit, is to reduce the amount available to the 
Appropriations Committee by the amount saved by the spending-cut 
amendments. Thus, at its core, what the lockbox proposal is all about 
is reducing discretionary spending beyond the limit set in the budget 
resolution. In other words, it is a procedure designed to force total 
discretionary spending below the level that Congress has already 
decided, through its budget resolution and through statutory caps, is 
the appropriate level for the coming fiscal year.
  The question we should be considering is: do we want a procedure that 
will lead to deeper cuts in discretionary spending than we are already 
on the path toward achieving?
  This year's budget resolution sets spending limits for the next 7 
years at levels that will force Congress to cut domestic discretionary 
spending by $473 billion over that period, or by one third, in real 
terms, over this year's level.
  For those of us who value the Federal Government's contribution to 
education and job training, transportation, housing, science and health 
research, environmental protection, national parks, crime control, and 
many of the other functions that comprise the discretionary spending 
category; for those of us who are alarmed at the severity of the cuts 
we are witnessing in so many essential programs, such as the one-third 
cut in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes little 
sense to endorse a procedure that will likely lead to further cuts--or 
fewer opportunities to restore funds--to these programs.
  Even Members who do wish to cut discretionary spending further, 
however, cannot dispute the fact that we already have an extremely 
effective process in place for controlling this type of spending. Under 
our existing procedures, Congress approves a total amount of spending 
for discretionary spending, and then enforces that amount by subjecting 
individual spending measures to Budget Act points of order--which has 
been in effect since 1974--and to the threat of across-the-board cuts, 
or sequestration--which has been in effect since 1990.
  These controls have enabled Congress to restrain the growth of 
discretionary spending to such an extent that its share of gross 
domestic product [GDP] has declined from
 10.5 percent in 1980 to 8.2 percent in 1994. If Congress complies with 
the current discretionary spending caps, as we have every reason to 
believe it will, such spending will decline to just 6.8 percent in 
1998. Domestic discretionary spending will have declined from 5.1 
percent of GDP in 1980, to 3.7 percent in 1994, to 3.1 percent in 1998.

  Fortunately, it is unlikely that this new procedure will bring about 
significantly larger reductions in discretionary spending than those we 
will already be required to achieve. Most cutting amendments offered on 
the House floor traditionally have involved relatively small amounts. 
And, because House savings from spending-cut amendments will be 
averaged with Senate savings, the final amount by which discretionary 
spending will be lowered is likely to be relatively minor. Moreover, I 
suspect that as discretionary spending levels are reduced further, 
increasing numbers of floor amendments to appropriations bills will 
involve transfers of funds, rather than simple cuts.
  For what may well be insignificant reduction in the deficit, one 
result of this new procedure is likely to be protracted conflict 
between the Senate and the House, and between Congress and the 
President, toward the end of each year's appropriations season when 
new, reduced allocations of spending are parceled out to the 
appropriations subcommittees to accommodate whatever lockbox savings 
are finally achieved.
  Mr. Chairman, if our goal is to establish procedures that will help 
us reduce the deficit, this measure aims at the wrong target. Like 
procedures Congress has considered in recent years--such as expedited 
rescission, line-item veto, separation of emergency and nonemergency 
appropriations--to apply further controls to discretionary spending, 
the lockbox proposal addresses the one part of the budget that is 
already under the strictest control. If our budget process is 
inadequate in any way, it is that it provides comparatively little 
control for the mandatory spending--entitlement programs--that is 
driving the growth of the Federal budget.
  In contrast to the decline in discretionary spending that has been 
occurring, and will continue to occur, mandatory spending has grown 
from 9.3 percent of GDP in 1980 to 10.7 percent in 1994, and will equal 
12.6 percent of GDP in 1998.
  If the plan to balance the budget by 2002 is to succeed, Congress 
must change its focus with respect to budget process matters. Rather 
than devoting our time and effort to devising ways to apply more 
controls to the part of the budget that is already under the strictest 
control, we must devote that same kind of effort to addressing other 
parts of the budget that are under less effective control. That 
includes not only entitlement programs, but also tax expenditures 
which, like entitlement programs, are not reauthorized on an annual 
basis.
  Popular as the lockbox proposal is, I urge Members to consider 
carefully whether we really want a new procedure that increases the 
complexity of the budget process and the difficulty of reaching final 
agreement on appropriations bills, and that focuses our deficit-
reduction efforts on an area of the budget that is already contributing 
more than its fair share to the cause.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, when I came here 17 years ago, 2 years 
before my hero, Ronald Reagan, it was for the purposes of putting an 
end to the deterioration of our U.S. military, making it as difficult 
as possible for this Congress to spend money, to raise taxes and place 
regulatory burdens on the American people. So needless to say, I stand 
here today very much excited about what has been happening for the last 
8 months, and particularly what is happening on this bill.
  I also just want to thank the leadership for their continual efforts 
to bring a bill to this floor that represents what I say is workable 
legislation, with a compromise language but a steadfastness in 
principle. Indeed, this document before us today is the product of 
consultation with, listen to this, the Committee on Appropriations, the 
Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research 
Service, and even the Office of Management and Budget. That is all the 
people that have been involved in trying to bring this workable piece 
of legislation to the floor.
  While this bill may not have reached the floor as soon as some of us 
might have desired, it is here today in a form that guarantees that 
when Members come to this floor to cut discretionary spending programs 
and reduce the deficit, spending will go down. That is what this is all 
about.

[[Page H 8841]]

  This bill is in a form that ensures that the Committee on 
Appropriations maintains flexibility to reach a consensus in 
conference, and that is very important, because that is what this 
legislative process is all about, all the while, spending less of the 
taxpayers' money. This bill is in a form that encourages spending, 
encourages spending cut amendments, because Members will know that when 
a spending cut is adopted, spending will be less at the end of the day. 
That is what this legislation is all about.

                              {time}  1400

  Finally, this bill is in a form that, while procedurally arcane, it 
truly works. Let us look at the process, because we need to establish 
legislative intent here today.
  First, the deficit reduction lockbox account would be established in 
the Congressional Budget Office to monitor savings made in 
appropriations bills by House and Senate amendments adopted on the 
respective floor of those bodies, and to lock in average savings of the 
two houses by lowering congressional and statutory spending caps.
  This lockbox account would consist of 13 subaccounts, matching the 13 
appropriations subcommittees, and each subaccount would consist of a 
House lockbox balance, a Senate lockbox balance, and a joint House-
Senate lockbox balance.
  Upon the passage of each appropriation bill by each of the houses, 
the Director of the CBO would enter a balance for the appropriate 
subaccount of that house based on savings resulting from amendments 
adopted by that house from the spending level of the reported bill. 
During the consideration of each appropriation bill, a running tally 
would be established reflecting the increases and decreases in 
budgetary authority from the reported bill's total resulting from the 
adoption of each amendment.
  Once an appropriation bill is passed in the Senate, the average of 
the House and the Senate savings for that bill would be entered in the 
joint House-Senate balance and the overall allocation, that is, the 
602(a) spending limit for the appropriations committees would be 
reduced by that amount.
  That means it cannot ever be spent again. Whenever an overall 
spending limit is adjusted downward, the chairmen of the appropriations 
committees would submit to their houses the revised suballocation for 
that subcommittee to reflect the reductions in the overall limits.
  Furthermore, to ensure actual spending reduction, the bill states 
that upon the enactment of all appropriations bills for a particular 
fiscal year, the Director of OMB make reductions in the statutory 
spending ceilings to reflect the total cumulative savings in the joint 
House-Senate lockbox balance.
  This process will apply the provisions of the bill retroactively to 
fiscal year 1996 for any appropriation bill passed by the House after 
the date of House passage of the deficit reduction lockbox bill.
  Mr. Chairman, while this process may seem complicated, it is only as 
complicated as is necessary to ensure efficiency, reality and spending 
cuts in the budgetary process. I believe this new element of our 
process is necessary, and I believe that this bill provides the 
balanced yet reasonable process reform to assist our efforts toward a 
balanced budget.
  That is complicated, but, ladies and gentlemen, it is going to work. 
It means when Members come on this floor and vote to cut a program, 
that program is going to stay cut and the money is going toward the 
deficit, not going to be spent on some other program. That is what this 
is all about. That is why Members need to come over here and vote for 
this vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very popular measure, this 
lockbox proposal. It enjoys wide bipartisan sponsorship and even 
broader support here in the House, and perhaps that is equally true in 
the other house as well. But I think it is important that at least a 
few iconoclastic voices be raised in opposition to this measure so that 
we might more adequately and more deeply reflect on what we are doing 
and the consequences of those actions.
  We have a basic responsibility here in the House of Representatives, 
even more so than the other house, to manage the economy, to make sure 
that we have a system of economic growth and prosperity, that we are 
creating jobs and creating economic opportunity for all Americans.
  I know that the Members of this House take that responsibility very 
seriously. Unfortunately, however, we are focusing our attention only 
on one aspect of our economy, and we have been doing that for far too 
long now. That is this deficit, the budget deficit.
  Focusing our attention on the budget deficit regrettably takes our 
attention away from two other deficits that are at least equally 
important and perhaps even more so: One is the trade deficit. I will 
not talk much about that.
  The other is the investment deficit. We have a substantial deficit in 
the investment in the future of this country. It has been estimated 
that that deficit ranges as high as $1 trillion a year.
  In other words, we may need as much as $1 trillion of public 
investment in order to create the kind of adequate growth in the 
economy that is necessary to create the kind of jobs and economic 
opportunity that is essential for a strong, sound, healthy economy. 
Other countries in the industrialized world are doing much more than we 
are.
  We unfortunately are focusing our attention on the budget deficit to 
the detriment of our other responsibilities in this House. In so doing, 
this House has already tied its hands substantially with regard to its 
ability to manage fiscal policy, so much so that the entire, or most at 
least of the management of this economy has been handed over to the 
Federal Reserve, which has the ability to regulate monetary policy, and 
it is through monetary policy that our economy is seeing the ups and 
downs it has experienced in recent years as a result primarily of 
changes in interest rates.
  We have taken from ourselves the ability to manage fiscal policy, 
which means the ability to regulate the amount of growth that we need 
through spending and saving policies which are primarily the 
responsibility of this house. Now we are taking one further additional 
step down into that deep cellar by the passage, and I am sure it will 
pass, of this lockbox proposal, because once again it restricts our 
ability to manage fiscal policy in a responsible way by taking away 
from the House that which it needs, which is flexibility with regard to 
our spending and saving practices.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, that although this seems like a good idea and 
although many people support it, I think that we ought to reflect more 
adequately on what we are doing and begin to understand the 
consequences of our actions in restricting our ability to manage the 
fiscal house, that responsibility which we have been charged to manage, 
our fiscal obligations and fiscal policy for this country.
  In passing this measure we are restricting our ability to do that. We 
will be restricting our ability to stimulate growth and to create jobs 
and economic opportunity. By so doing, we are making, I believe, a 
serious mistake. Nevertheless, it is something that we will probably 
do, and we will have to correct it at some point in the future.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act which is an idea whose time has arrived. 
The bipartisan support for this legislation is very well known. We are 
going to be able to hold the line on waste and return savings to reduce 
the deficit. This is a bipartisan milestone legislative item that I 
think all of those who have been involved over the number of years 
before this Congress deserve a great deal of credit for bringing about 
and I think that the leadership of the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] 
today on this particularly should be highlighted. I thank him for his 
efforts.
  The legislation before us, Mr. Chairman, will create a series of 
lockboxes to capture savings from the floor amendments and give 
appropriators maximum flexibility in allocating such savings. The 
process is one jointly with three lockboxes from both the House 

[[Page H 8842]]
and the Senate and a joint House-Senate account that will lock in the 
savings.
  After a bill is passed, the Congressional Budget Office will enter 
the final amount saved into the House lockbox. The Senate will follow a 
similar procedure and then average the two figures.
  At this point the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, will reduce 
the overall allocations for the House and Senate appropriations 
committees by the amount in the shared lockbox.
  As Members can see, the American people, Mr. Chairman, have been 
saying for a long time, ``We want the lockbox. We want to make sure 
that the savings you actually have in committee and on the floor result 
in real savings.
  I think we will be hearing later from the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley] about his particular example which is so poignant. But for our 
taxpayers' protection the lockbox is essential to ensure that spending 
cuts that are made on the floor actually go toward reducing the deficit 
instead of funding tax cuts or other expenditures.
  This session of the legislature, Mr. Chairman, has seen the line-item 
veto, the balanced budget amendment, the prohibition of unfunded 
mandates, and regulatory reform. The final item in protecting taxpayers 
will be the adoption of this lockbox legislation. It is consistent with 
the other reforms. I must say it also has been considered after careful 
deliberation of all those parties involved. I congratulate the sponsors 
and look forward to its passage.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is very important and long overdue 
legislation. I want to commend all of those who worked so hard on it on 
both the majority and minority side.
  I would like to thank my cosponsors and sponsors on this side, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. I would like 
to thank all the folks on the other side who worked so hard on this, 
including the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] who when we were in the 
majority carried the lead on this proposal. And I would like to thank 
the majority leadership, because this bill is coming to the floor and 
frankly it should have come to the floor when we were in charge and it 
did not.
  Let me say, this is a very simple concept. That is, that when you go 
to the floor and make a cut, and that cut succeeds, that that money 
goes to where it should go, which is to deficit reduction, rather than 
having the Committee on Appropriations go spend it on something else 
that no one has ever voted on.
  Time and time again this body over the
   last decade has voted for cuts and then the money is spent on 
something else. That has not been the will of the House. That has not 
been what should have happened. Now for the first time when Members get 
up and if they had voted on, say, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and there was a 3-percent cut or voted on 
anything else and there was a cut, automatically the overall numbers 
would decrease and the money would go to deficit reduction. This is the 
kind of rational change that will actually bring our deficit down and 
yet at the same time not require us to make such draconian and across-
the-board cuts that so many good programs pay because so many other 
programs which mainly are pork programs and would never succeed 
standing on their own or in the light of day, are sort of the jackals 
of the hard work of Members who go up and ask for cuts and they feed on 
these cuts and are used for these other kinds of programs.

  This is very, very simple. It says the lockbox, and I would like to 
thank the people on my staff who came up with this idea originally 3, 4 
years ago and actually named it the lockbox, says very simply, where 
you put the money, you make a cut, it goes into a lockbox and its stays 
there.
  I would like to say that when the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and I talked at a Democratic 
issues conference 3 years ago about doing this, we did not know that we 
could actually get it done.
  Today is a very good day. I hope that both of us on both sides of the 
aisle will make sure that the Senate goes along and that this lockbox 
becomes law, because it will reduce pork, it will reduce deficits, and 
it will make sure that the will of this body is actually achieved.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hopes of the gentleman from 
New York are indeed realized because they are the same hopes we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the commander in chief of the Republican theme team.
  Mr. HOKE. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to speak on this today in favor of it. I 
think that the reason that this came about is the same reason that it 
was first brought to our attention, and when I say ``our,'' I mean my 
colleague and classmate the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and my 
attention and everybody else, the other Members of the 103d freshman 
class.
                              {time}  1415

  In about the summer of 1993, after we had all been elected and we had 
come here idealistically, blithely thinking that we were going to make 
cuts in the budget and we were going to do the fiscally responsible 
thing and do what is right by the American people, the taxpayers that 
had voted us here, and we found out about halfway through that first 
year that a cut is not a cut at all, and we tried to do something about 
it.
  Lo and behold, one of the things we found out is that we were also in 
the minority. Then along came the 104th Congress, and 72-some new 
freshmen Republicans were ushered in by the American people, and they 
found out the same thing in the summer of 1994. They found out, to 
great frustration, and not a little bit of anger, that, in fact, just 
because we vote for a cut in an appropriations bill on the floor, it 
does not necessarily mean anything.
  So, Mr. Chairman, with some bipartisan support as well, on both 
sides, we have had a critical mass of frustration and anger that said, 
``Look, this flies in the face of common sense. If we are going to do 
what we were elected to do, if we are going to bring the fiscally 
responsible actions to the floor, then why does it not actually hold? 
Why does it not obtain?''
  It is amazing, because it completely flies in the face of common 
sense what we do with these appropriations bill. Thank goodness for the 
Republican freshmen of the 104th Congress, because now we are going to 
pass this bill and it means that if we actually have a spending cut on 
the floor, that it will mean something.
  Mr. Chairman, that has very important impact, because one of the 
things it does is it takes some of the power away from the Committee on 
Appropriations and it puts more power in the Congress, generally, which 
means that the will of the Congress can actually be worked out on the 
floor. That is very important.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of one other thing that is happening now, 
a similar thing, and it will seem equally confusing to the public that 
watches this. That is that Members all have office accounts. We were 
under the impression, as many Members were, I am sure, in the 104th 
Congress freshman class, that when we cut our office account and did 
not spend all the money, where does that balance of the money go? 
Members would think it goes back to the Federal Treasury. Wrong. It 
goes back to a fund that is an overall programmatic fund and it gets 
reprogrammed some place else.
  That is completely unlike everything in America. Thank goodness we 
are in the right direction here. We are going to do the same thing with 
the office accounts and we are going to bring a little more common 
sense and fiscal sanity and responsibility to the way that we run 
things here in the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H 8843]]

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to stand here in 
enthusiastic support for the lockbox bill. A bit later, I will be 
offering an amendment to make it even better. But meanwhile, as the 
self-styled mother of lockbox, who has now moved into being the 
grandmother of lockbox, I would like to share with our colleagues some 
of the history here.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] was correct when he said 
that a number of us introduced this bill almost 3 years ago on the 
Democratic side. Similarly, a Republican, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo], offered it as a Republican bill. We joined together, and, over 
time, our bipartisan efforts became the genesis of the bill we are 
voting on today.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to everyone that prior to signing 
the budget bill in August 1993, President Clinton signed an Executive 
Order which enacted a lockbox into which all of the savings generated 
and the revenues raised under the 1993 budget bill would go.
  That lockbox concept has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for 
deficit reduction, so we know that the concept worked. This bill, as my 
colleagues have heard, has passed in several forms in this Congress. 
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] first offered it as an 
amendment to the emergency supplemental bill earlier this spring and it 
passed overwhelmingly, 418 to 5.
  We offered it last month as an amendment to the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill and it again passed overwhelmingly. Mr. Chairman, 
here we are again with an independent, stand alone bill, which I think 
reflects enormous bipartisan support, the very hard work of Republican 
freshmen and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], and the Committee on 
Rules. It is also the product of some very hard work by many on this 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer my enthusiastic support and I hope that a few 
minutes from now we will make this bill even better with the adoption 
of the amendment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and I will 
offer.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], my colleague who is the chairman of 
the Republican effort in this matter and has done a magnificent job.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we came to Congress, and the freshman class 
has been mentioned many times on the floor. Much to my chagrin, one of 
the programs that I cut out of the budget, a wasteful program, $25 
million, I excitedly ran out of the room and I said, ``I have had a 
victory. I saved the taxpayers $25 million,'' only to find out the next 
day that an amendment was offered to take the entire savings and move 
it to another governmental program.
  Lo and behold, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] came up to me and 
said,

       Mark, I have just the fix for this dilemma that we are 
     facing in the U.S. Congress. It is a savings account. It is 
     like a Christmas Club account that the families save toward 
     to provide for funds for much-needed projects.

  Mr. Chairman, the lockbox account is a historic effort to make 
Government accountable for its spending and to put money aside and 
bring down the deficit. Some suggested today that we are unnecessarily 
focusing on the deficit of this Nation. It is our No. 1 problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we are spending more than we have. We are charging 
money to a charge account that the banks have canceled. We are in debt 
up to our ears and that debt is costing us 15 percent of our national 
budget just to pay interest alone on the debt.
  Let me put it in plain, simple terms. The lockbox will reduce the 
deficit. It will reduce the cost of interest to the consumer. One 
example: A 1-percent reduction in the interest rate on a $75,000 loan 
on a single family home, a 1-percent reduction will provide $750 a year 
in saving, $65 a month.
  The Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act will allow us, over time, to 
reduce the Federal Government's appetite for debt and bring about 
fiscal sanity in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude and thank the Democratic side of the aisle 
for their help on this issue, and particularly the gentleman from Idaho 
[Mr. Crapo], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the Committee 
on Rules, for their leadership in bringing this to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day and I urge every colleague to 
support this viable initiative.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the lockbox bill is a security key for 
our children. It is a security key for our grandchildren. With the 
passage of the lockbox bill, and its signing into law I hope sometime 
this year, we are going to be saying to our children and grandchildren 
this Congress is going to be more fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the consequence of this bill is that it will 
result in the reduction of the deficit. If we do not deal with that 
serious problem, we will put a load on our children and grandchildren 
out from under which they cannot climb.
  This bill will have the advantage of cutting pork-barrel spending. 
What has happened on so many occasions is that Democrats and 
Republicans come to the floor of this House in the light of day and 
cast a tough vote to cut spending programs, and then late at night, 
behind some closed door in a Committee on Appropriations hearing 
somewhere with very few people watching, the appropriators in the House 
or the Senate might add the same amount of spending back into the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a poor way to do the public's business. This 
lockbox bill will not only result in more fiscally sound decisions; it 
will result in those decisions being made in the light of day.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and others on 
the majority side. This is a true example of this Congress working in 
bipartisan fashion to come up with a bill that makes common sense and a 
bill that is fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to pay special tribute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman] who worked on this bill over the last several 
years, at a time when very few people were paying attention to it, when 
others wanted to put it on the shelf. She never gave up and the 
gentlewoman from California deserves credit from both sides of the 
aisle for her effort on this. I hope we can apply the concept of this 
legislation to spending in outyears as well.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I hope the American people will find out about 
this commonsense measure being passed today. The fact that we are not 
having a bipartisan fight on the floor will probably cause many people, 
our friends in the press, not to pay attention to this bill. This is a 
very significant piece of legislation. I hope the American people will 
find out about it and I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] 
and the bipartisan effort.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman both for yielding and 
for being the manager of this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who worked so very hard on 
this. They have done an extraordinary job.
  Mr. Chairman, budgeting in the U.S. Government is the most complex 
procedure I have ever dealt with in my life. With a family budget, we 
sit down and look at our checkbook. With a corporate budget, generally 
there is a committee that does it. And in State, city, or country 
government, there is one committee that does the appropriations and 
sets the basic budget tone and then it is reviewed and signed or not 
signed.
  Here in Washington, we deal with budget resolutions done by one 
committee, appropriations bills done by 13 subcommittees, 
appropriations bills, reconciliations, raising the debt ceiling of the 
United States of America, maybe a continuing resolution. It has taken 
me the 2\1/2\ years that I have been here just to begin to comprehend 
what it is we are doing with it.
  Mr. Chairman, how is it for the public? All they know is that we have 
a $4.95 trillion debt, that we have a deficit every year, and they keep 
saying to me, and all of us, I am sure, ``Why can't you all balance the 
budget?''

[[Page H 8844]]

  I think we are honestly making an effort. We have, in the last 2\1/2\ 
years in this House, passed a balanced budget amendment; we have passed 
a line-item veto, so that the President can get involved in the process 
on a line-item basis; we have eliminated the baseline budgeting, so 
that we look at the budget from the year before and calculate our 
budgets from that; and now, we have the lockbox concept.
  Mr. Chairman, it is complicated and sort of a complicated name, but 
it is so doggone simple in what it does. That is, when you cut 
something from an appropriations bill on this floor from now on, it is 
going to stay cut and will not be added some place else, either in that 
appropriation or some other appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is pretty straightforward when it comes 
right down to it. For that reason, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation as part of the overall package, which I believe we need to 
make our procedures simpler, to make them plainer, so that we as 
Members know exactly what we are doing and so the public can recognize 
what we are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can all support this legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns], my friends and colleague, one of the well-known 
deficit hawks of this institution.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I fully endorse the concept of a lockbox 
and believe this is a good first step toward fulfilling our pledge to 
the American people. We made a promise that we will spare future 
generations from being asked to bear the brunt of paying for our 
follies.
  When I heard the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] talk, and 
the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] talk, I thought to myself, they 
would be interested to know that even Thomas Jefferson supported the 
lockbox. So I went back into his writings and I have a quote for my 
colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, it says,

       I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, 
     applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to 
     the discharge of the national debt; and not for a 
     multiplication of offices and salaries merely to make 
     partisans, that is, just pass something to get votes, and for 
     increasing by every device the public debt on the principle 
     of it being a public blessing.

  In effect, when he was talking about ridding the national debt by 
taking possible savings, he was actually talking about a lockbox. My 
colleagues probably did not know that, but I thought I would share that 
with them.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously I am in favor of this concept, and if we are 
truly committed to turning our Nation's economy around, we must not 
falter in this regard. I am a cosponsor of this bill and proud to speak 
in its behalf.
  Mr. Chairman, let us heed the words of Thomas Jefferson and vote to 
protect the public interest and make the lockbox permanent.
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the Members of this 
body that if this bill had been law last year, we would have saved $659 
million that would have gone to deficit reduction. That is the sum that 
we actually passed in cuts, and yet later we found that those cuts, 
those savings, were reallocated for additional spending programs in 
this House.
  When I think about the fact, and I have spoken about the $200 billion 
chronic deficits that we are running in this Government, when I think 
about the fact that last year we had $100 million in the ASRM program 
that we thought we had cut on this floor, and yet we found out 
subsequently that that money was reallocated for additional spending, 
when I think about the fact that it is really the will of the majority 
of this House, when the majority votes on this floor, to cut spending, 
and then to see that will of the majority overturned, overturned by 
having that money reallocated, I say let us let the will of the 
majority be done. Let us let the cuts be carried out.
  I am excited about the reform movement in this Congress. I think 
people have told us, ``No more politics as usual.'' I think that people 
have made the point to us that this change, these changes that we are 
implementing in public policy really represent for us a keeping faith 
with the expectations of the American people, that we are going to keep 
out commitments. We are going to basically keep our credibility with 
that public and that we are going to say to that public, when we say we 
are cutting spending, we mean we are cutting spending; we mean that we 
are actually going to implement that and make certain those cuts go 
right to the bottom line.
  Last, I will share with you my final thought on this subject, and 
that is that the most important thing we to do here is deficit 
reduction, and this reform, this governmental reform that we are 
implementing today, will allow us to better implement our policy to 
reduce that Federal budget deficit, and that is the final reason we 
should vote for this reform.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have one further speaker who will close for 
our side.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time, 3\1/2\ 
minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have said for a long time that we need 
structural reforms if we are ever going to balance this budget. This 
bill does that.
  As people around the country watch on C-SPAN, and they probably 
writhe and cheer when this body has the guts to make some cuts along 
the way, what they forget along those lines is that when that bill goes 
to the other body months later, if we have been successful in making 
those cuts, the other body just sort of backfills.
  I am going to give you an example. Last week we had the vote on the 
B-2 bomber on the appropriation spending bill for defense. I voted 
against it. I voted against it because I did not think that we could 
afford it, and had we been successful, we were not, but had we been 
successful, I would have wanted that money, and the reason I voted 
``no'' in the first place was to lower our deficit so that the other 
body would not have been able to take that money and use it for 
something else.
  I am a fiscal conservative, and whether it is the line item veto or 
changing the budget process to work, we have got to make this 
institution aware that when we cut spending here, we cannot allow the 
other body to simply raise it, and when they cut spending there, they 
should not be in the same shoes on this side to take the money that 
they might cut and add it to something else.
  This idea, the lockbox, with strong bipartisan support, and it has 
been that way from the very onset, does exactly what we say we are 
going to do. When we cut spending, the money goes to reduce the 
deficit. It does not go for something else, and that is the reason that 
I rise and join so many of my colleagues here this afternoon in support 
of this legislation. This is real reform. It is structural reform. It 
is going to work, and it is about time that we passed it here and get 
the other body to do the same.
  I just would encourage my colleagues, all of them, to support this 
legislation because it really does something about spending cuts, and 
that is what it is all about.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I mentioned previously, I support the legislation. I do. There are 
several amendments that will be offered shortly. I intend to offer one. 
The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] intends to offer one. We 
will be discussing those very soon.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan deficit 
lockbox legislation, H.R. 1162.
  However, it is unfortunate that H.R. 1162 was not brought before the 
House of Representatives prior to consideration of this year's spending 
bills. Regrettably, this means that many of the cuts I voted for this 
year are not guaranteed to help reduce the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1162 is all about the truth. When Members vote to 
cut an unworthy project and do not redirect those scarce resources 
elsewhere, our constituents expect that money to go toward reducing the 
deficit.
  Unfortunately, that is not the way the system works now, but with the 
passage of H.R. 1162 that will change. Now when the project 

[[Page H 8845]]
is cut, those savings will lower the total sum of funds available and 
the deficit should be reduced by a commensurate amount.
  I am pleased to support this truth in budgeting legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for H.R. 1162. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1162, the Deficit Reduction Lock-Box Act. I am an original cosponsor of 
this legislation and I have appreciated working with the bipartisan 
group bringing the bill to the floor today.
  It should be recognized that we really started getting serious about 
deficit reduction with the 1993 budget agreement. Early that year, the 
President asked Members of Congress to the White House to brainstorm on 
just how we should approach our fiscal challenges. I met with the 
President on February 15, 1993, and at that time suggested to him the 
idea of a deficit reduction trust fund, which would help account for 
the money being saved through the budget process.
  I told the President that the American people are willing to make the 
hard choices on taxes, program cuts and budget priorities if they know 
that the ultimate result is deficit reduction. What makes people 
unhappy is when they pay their fair share, services are reduced, non-
priority items are funded and the deficit continues to rise.
  This is a meaningful response to the concern. The lock-box helps us 
make sure a cut is a cut and that a zero is a zero. I am pleased to see 
the House taking this step toward fiscal responsibility and thank the 
Members of both sides of the aisle who helped make it happen.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All the time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1162

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Deficit Reduction Lockbox 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment of Account.--Title III of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


                  ``deficit reduction lock-box account

       ``Sec. 314. (a) Establishment of Account.--There is 
     established in the Congressional Budget Office an account to 
     be known as the `Deficit Reduction Lock-box Account'. The 
     Account shall be divided into subaccounts corresponding to 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations. Each 
     subaccount shall consist of three entries: the `House Lock-
     box Balance'; the `Senate Lock-box Balance'; and the `Joint 
     House-Senate Lock-box Balance'.
       ``(b) Contents of Account.--Each entry in a subaccount 
     shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection 
     (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
       ``(c) Credit of Amounts to Account.--(1) The Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Director') shall, upon the engrossment of 
     any appropriation bill by the House of Representatives and 
     upon the engrossment of that bill by the Senate, credit to 
     the applicable subaccount balance of that House amounts of 
     new budget authority and outlays equal to the net amounts of 
     reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting 
     from amendments agreed to by that House to that bill.
       ``(2) The Director shall, upon the engrossment of Senate 
     amendments to any appropriation bill, credit to the 
     applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balance the amounts of 
     new budget authority and outlays equal to--
       ``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the 
     amount of new budget authority in the House Lock-box Balance 
     plus (ii) the amount of new budget authority in the Senate 
     Lock-box Balance for that bill; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the 
     amount of outlays in the House Lock-box Balance plus (ii) the 
     amount of outlays in the Senate Lock-box Balance for that 
     bill,

     under section 314(c), as calculated by the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       ``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `appropriation bill' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of a fiscal year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 314. Deficit reduction lock-box account.''
     SEC. 3. TALLY DURING HOUSE CONSIDERATION.

       There shall be available to Members in the House of 
     Representatives during consideration of any appropriations 
     bill by the House a running tally of the amendments adopted 
     reflecting increases and decreases of budget authority in the 
     bill as reported.

     SEC. 4. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 602(a) ALLOCATIONS AND SECTION 
                   602(b) SUBALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Allocations.--Section 602(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Upon the engrossment of Senate amendments to any 
     appropriation bill (as defined in section 314(d)) for a 
     fiscal year, the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of each House upon the 
     adoption of the most recent concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for that fiscal year shall be adjusted downward by the 
     amounts credited to the applicable Joint House-Senate Lockbox 
     Balance under section 314(c)(2), as calculated by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and the revised 
     levels of budget authority and outlays shall be submitted to 
     each House by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     that House and shall be printed in the Congressional 
     Record.''.
       (b) Suballocations.--Section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Whenever an adjustment is made 
     under subsection (a)(5) to an allocation under that 
     subsection, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall make downward adjustments in the most recent 
     suballocations of new budget authority and outlays under 
     subparagraph (A) to the appropriate subcommittees of that 
     committee in the total amounts of those adjustments under 
     section 314(c)(2). The revised suballocations shall be 
     submitted to each House by the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of that House and shall be printed in the 
     Congressional Record.''.

     SEC. 5. PERIODIC REPORTING OF ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.

       Section 308(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Such reports shall also include an up-to-date tabulation of 
     the amounts contained in the account and each subaccount 
     established by section 314(a).''.

     SEC. 6. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
       The discretionary spending limit for new budget authority 
     for any fiscal year set forth in section 601(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as adjusted in strict 
     conformance with section 251 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, shall be reduced by 
     the amount of the adjustment to the section 602(a) 
     allocations made under section 602(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, as calculated by the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget. The adjusted discretionary 
     spending limit for outlays for that fiscal year, as set forth 
     in such section 601(a)(2), shall be reduced as a result of 
     the reduction of such budget authority, as calculated by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget based upon 
     programmatic and other assumptions set forth in the joint 
     explanatory statement of managers
      accompanying the conference report on that bill. Reductions 
     (if any) shall occur upon the enactment of all regular 
     appropriation bills for a fiscal year or a resolution 
     making continuing appropriations through the end of that 
     fiscal year. This adjustment shall be reflected in reports 
     under sections 254(g) and 254(h) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act shall apply to all appropriation 
     bills making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 or any 
     subsequent fiscal year.
       (b) FY96 Application.--In the case of any appropriation 
     bill for fiscal year 1996 engrossed by the House of 
     Representatives after the date this bill was engrossed by the 
     House of Representatives after the date this bill was 
     engrossed by the House of Representatives and before the date 
     of enactment of this bill, the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and 
     of the Senate shall, within 10 calendar days after that date 
     of enactment of this Act, carry out the duties required by 
     this Act and amendments made by it that occur after the date 
     this Act was engrossed by the House of Representatives.
       (c) FY96 Allocations.--The duties of the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office and of the Committees on Budget 
     and on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     pursuant to this Act and the amendments made by it regarding 
     appropriation bills for fiscal year 1996 shall be based upon 
     the revised section 602(a) allocations in effect on the date 
     this Act was engrossed by the House of Representatives.
       (d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of a fiscal year.

[[Page H 8846]]

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to establish 
     procedures to provide for a deficit reduction lock-box and 
     related downward adjustment of discretionary spending 
     limits.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in 
the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will 
be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 2, 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 2, line 6, strike 
     ``ACCOUNT'' and insert ``LEDGER''.
       Page 2, line 7, strike ``Establishment of account'' and 
     insert ``Ledger''.
       Page 2, line 10, strike ``ACCOUNT'' and insert ``LEDGER''.
       Page 2, line 11, strike ``Establishment of Account'' and 
     insert ``Ledger''.
       Page 2, lines 11 and 12, strike ``There'' and all that 
     follows through ``Account,'' on line 13, and insert the 
     following: ``The Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Director') 
     shall maintain a ledger to be known as the `Deficit Reduction 
     Lock-box Ledger'.''.
       Page 2, line 14, strike ``Account'' and insert ``Ledger'' 
     and strike ``subaccounts'' and insert ``entries''.
       Page 2, line 16, strike ``subaccount'' and insert ``entry'' 
     and strike ``entries'' and insert ``parts''.
       Page 3, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following:
       ``(b) Components of Ledger.--Each component in an entry 
     shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection 
     (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
       Page 3, line 4, strike ``Account'' and insert ``Ledger''.
       Page 3, lines 5 and 6, strike ``of the Congressional Budget 
     Office (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Director')''.
       Page 3, line 9, strike ``subaccount'' and insert ``entry''.
       Page 4, line 2, strike the comma and insert a period and 
     strike lines 3 and 4.
       Page 4, before line 5, add the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Calculation of Lock-Box Savings in Senate.--For 
     purposes of calculating under this section the net amounts of 
     reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting 
     from amendments agreed to by the Senate on an appropriation 
     bill, the amendments reported to the Senate by its Committee 
     on Appropriations shall be considered to be part of the 
     original text of the bill.
       Page 4, between lines 13 and 14, strike ``account'' and 
     insert ``ledger''.
       Page 5, lines 9 and 10, strike ``, as calculated by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and'' and insert 
     a period, and on line 11 strike ``the'' and insert ``The''.
       Page 5, line 19, strike ``Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office'' and insert ``chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House''.
       Page 6, line 3, strike ``ACCOUNT'' and insert ``LEDGER''.
       Page 6, line 7, strike ``account'' and insert ``ledger'', 
     and on line 8, strike ``subaccount'' and insert ``entry''.
       Page 6, strike line 9 and all that follows through page 7, 
     line 7, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 6. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       The discretionary spending limits for new budget authority 
     and outlays for any fiscal year set forth in section 
     601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     adjusted in strict conformance with section 251 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     shall be reduced by the amounts set forth in the final 
     regular appropriation bill for that fiscal year or joint 
     resolution making continuing appropriations through the end 
     of that fiscal year. Those amounts shall be the sums of the 
     Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balances for that fiscal year, as 
     calculated under section 602(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. That bill or joint resolution shall 
     contain the following statement of law: ``As required by 
     section 6 of the Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act of 1995, for 
     fiscal year [insert appropriate fiscal year], the adjusted 
     discretionary spending limit for new budget authority shall 
     be reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of reduction] and 
     the adjusted discretionary limit for outlays shall be reduced 
     by $ [insert appropriate amount of reduction].'' 
     Notwithstanding section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, section 306 of that Act as it applies to this 
     statement shall be waived. This adjustment shall be reflected 
     in reports under sections 254(g) and 254(h) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       Page 7, lines 14 and 15, strike ``the date this bill was 
     engrossed by the House of Representatives'' and insert 
     ``August 4, 1995''.
       Page 8, lines 5 and 6, strike ``the date this bill was 
     engrossed by the House of Representatives'' and insert 
     ``August 4, 1995''.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I will briefly explain this amendment, which 
is somewhat technical. It is primarily a managers' amendment. I know 
there is some concern about time on the other side to get on with some 
of the amendments which we need to do.
   Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment primarily a series of 
technical changes to the bill reflecting dozens of hours of careful 
consultation with budget process experts, the various committees with 
interest and jurisdiction, and lockbox advocates. In making these 
technical changes we are clarifying the effect of lockbox, ensuring 
that we are in conformity with the Budget Act, addressing a potential 
vagueness in the language vis-a-vis the other body and fixing a 
potential constitutional problem with the requirement for lowering the 
statutory spending caps. Among the modifications we are making, is a 
change of the language of lockbox from ``accounts'' and ``subaccounts'' 
to ``ledger'' and ``entries.'' The reason for this is to be as clear as 
possible about the accounting or scorekeeping function assigned to CBO 
in this process. We have also made sure that all the various tasks 
assigned in this bill are
 properly assigned to reflect the requirements of the Budget Act. In 
addition, we have added language to make clear that when we refer to 
``Senate amendments'' to appropriations bills we mean amendments 
adopted on the floor of the other body. In addition, some legal experts 
raised a concern about whether the language in this bill might have 
constitutional problems in the sense that it keys the statutory 
lowering of the discretionary caps by OMB to a provision that is not 
yet in law. In order to make absolutely sure that we do not run afoul 
of the constitution, this amendment would modify that section of the 
bill to require that the final appropriations bill--or CR--for a given 
fiscal year must include a statement telling OMB to reduce the caps by 
the amount of the total of all the joint House-Senate lockboxes through 
that budget cycle. Finally, this amendment ensures that the House is 
held accountable for lockbox to the date on which we first adopted it--
when we passed the fiscal year 1996 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill on 
August 4, 1995, in which we included a Crapo lockbox amendment. I would 
like to thank the Budget Committee and the Appropriations CMTE for help 
in crafting this technical manager's amendment and I urge its passage.
  amendment offered by mr. frost to the amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frost to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Goss: Amend the instruction relating to page 7, line 14, 
     to read as follows:
       Page 7, beginning on line 14, strike ``after the date this 
     bill was engrossed by the House of Representatives and''.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, many of us have supported lockbox because we 
want to make real cuts that will really reduce the deficit and assist 
our efforts to reach a balanced budget. However, as reported, this bill 
will not be applicable to 12 of the 13 fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
bills.
  I understand that my colleague from Florida, in the amendment that he 
has just discussed, is offering an amendment which will make this bill 
applicable to the labor-HHS and Department of Defense appropriations, 
but I think we should go all the way and cover every one of the 13 
bills in this exercise. The DOD appropriation was reduced by $121 
million, and those savings will be counted toward deficit reduction. If 
we can count those savings, why can we not count others?
  Mr. Chairman, let me give you a few specific examples of savings that 
have been made in the other 10 bills. We cut $20 million from the 
global environmental fund and $14 million from OPIC when we considered 
the foreign operations appropriation. We cut $65.8 million from the 
Treasury, Postal appropriation by reducing the funds for offices of the 
Food and Drug Administration. The energy and water appropriation was 
reduced $20 million by cutting the gas turbine modular helium reactor. 
Interior was reduced $5 million when we agreed to cut fossil energy 
research. In total, Mr. Chairman, the House has agreed to reduce 
discretionary spending by over $240 million, 

[[Page H 8847]]
which, in anyone's calculation, amounts to real money.
  Mr. Chairman, the question has arisen about what happens if money 
saved from one bill has subsequently been spent in another. I know the 
Committee on Appropriations believes this amendment will hamper its 
ability to negotiate with their Senate counterparts. I know Members 
will say funds have already been reallocated to programs that really 
matter to their districts. But is it the answer really that we have had 
to make hard choices? We have made them, and in order to get credit for 
them, they have to be real.
  Mr. Chairman, if we apply lockbox retroactively, then maybe some of 
these cuts we have made will be real. That is what this Member intends 
when voting to cut, and I am sure that intention is shared by every 
other Member of this body.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman I think that the subject of retroactivity has been 
greatly debated in the process by all the players, and I recognize the 
sentiment that their distinguished gentleman from Texas in laying out. 
It is one that we all had when we started this process. It is something 
we hoped we could achieve.
  The reality of the circumstances is, as we got into this thing and 
worked it all out, and it was complicated, as we see it, is that we had 
to draw a starting line somewhere, and we felt that the fair way to do 
it was to pick the day when the House spoke on it, and that is, in 
effect, what the managers' amendment, the underlying amendment to which 
this amendment applies, tries to do, and that date is August 4.
  In terms of retroactivity, that would mean presumably that the 
lockbox might affect for fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS, Defense, and D.C., 
by my calculations and that is, I use the word ``might'' advisedly, but 
I believe that is true.
  The problem with trying to go back before that is
   we were operating very much under different rules and there was no 
notice to the appropriators, and I think that is a question of fair 
play, a question certainly we did not want to take away unnecessarily 
flexibility from the appropriators, but a practical reality that money 
has been reprogrammed and put into the process.

  We as Members of this House have voted on that process during the 
movement of those other appropriations bills that happened before 
August 4. So I think it is extremely impractical, no matter how we feel 
about the general principle which the gentleman from Texas has 
espoused, it is impractical to get there.
  So I am afraid I have to urge opposition to the amendment. I do not 
know how we can go back and capture what is not there, especially when 
we put everybody on notice on a certain date and we said that after 
this date we will operate under these new rules, and that is what my 
managers' amendment does. It says we are simply going to do that, and 
we are doing that, and I think that is living up to our word, our 
commitment. It is clearly what we put Members on notice on, and while I 
wish that we could do better, I do not think it is practical that we 
can, and I think it would deviate a little bit from what we promised 
the Members of this House if we passed the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas. I do not wish to do that.
  I urge, therefore, that we oppose it and defeat it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Frost], he is a very valuable Member of the so-called 
opposition party, the loyal opposition, on the Committee on Rules, and 
I have great respect for him.
  But his amendment, I would have preferred to pass this lockbox right 
out of the starting gate the first of the year and had it affect 
everything from then and into the future.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I am going to make the same argument with my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], when she offers 
an amendment on the out years, but, as my colleagues know, this is a 
controversial issue. My colleagues heard my next-door colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey], stand up and say we are spending 
a trillion dollars too little in this Congress and that we have got to 
build all these roads, and bridges, and infrastructure. Well, the truth 
of the matter is, my colleagues, we have a serious problem in this 
country. It is called a deficit that is ruining us in this country. It 
is turning us into a debtor nation, and there is nothing more 
uncompassionate than taking away the future of our children and 
grandchildren.
  Now I take a back seat to nobody on deficit reduction. Here is a bill 
I introduced back on June 22, 1995. It contains $890 billion, and that 
is not million, that is billion dollars, in cuts. It cuts just about 
everything. But it balances the budget in 5 years. That is how 
important it is.
  But I would just say to the gentleman that, as the gentleman knows, 
Ronald Reagan, and I mentioned his name earlier, taught me something a 
long time ago. And that is, we cannot always have it our own way, we 
have to compromise. It is always a two-way street, and that is what we 
have done with this legislation. We had many of the appropriators dead 
set against this legislation, the same thing over in the other body, 
because they do not want to be hamstrung in spending, spending, 
spending.
  Well, this is a compromise. It is a good compromise. It is a 
compromise that is going to get, I think, the overwhelming majority in 
this vote. That is why I would urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment and any other amendments to this bill, because it is a 
consensus that has been worked out with both the Democrats and 
Republicans, the liberals and conservatives. it is a bill that is 
acceptable, and that is why my colleagues should vote against my good 
friend's amendment and vote for this bill on final passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 221, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 656]

                               AYES--204

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)

[[Page H 8848]]

     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Wilson
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1508

  Messrs. NEUMANN, FRANK of Massachusetts, FARR, RIGGS, and RAHALL 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CREMEANS, TOWNS, SHADEGG, and ROYCE, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  amendment offered by ms. harman to the amendment offered by mr. goss

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Harman to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Goss:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a 
     new section 6, in the third sentence--
       (1) insert ``and each outyear'' after ``[insert appropriate 
     fiscal year]''; and
       (2) insert ``for the budget year and each outyear'' after 
     ``insert appropriate amount of reduction'' the second place 
     it appears.

  Ms. HARMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am standing here as close as I possibly 
can to the center aisle to signify the point that there is bipartisan 
support for the legislation that we are considering.
  Mr. Chairman, just a moment ago we saw here in the well of the House, 
Elizabeth Waldholtz, our newest daughter. I would like to say, as a 
mother of four, how happy I am that a new life has just joined us.
  I want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] 
for his leadership on the lockbox legislation and for his help in 
bringing the bill to the floor as a freestanding bill, as well as an 
amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The gentleman from 
Florida and I both believe that the lockbox approach is a critical step 
in that long and winding road to a balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do even better. This amendment pairs the mother 
of lockbox with the father of the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment. Our amendment will improve the current bill and allow us to 
capture outyear savings that result from successful floor amendments 
cutting appropriations. True deficit hawks should support this 
amendment, as do the National Taxpayers Union and the Concord 
Coalition. Let me repeat. The National Taxpayers Union and the Concord 
Coalition support this amendment. Indeed, earlier in the debate, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] made the point that Thomas 
Jefferson supports this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Harman-Stenholm amendment is very simple. It 
ensures that spending cuts in a multiyear program result in a reduction 
in outyear discretionary spending caps, as well as the present year 
caps.
                              {time}  1515

  Let me remind my colleagues that H.R. 1162 as originally introduced 
by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and myself, and now cosponsored 
by 80 of our colleagues, contained provisions capturing outyear 
spending, exactly what this amendment would do. The Harman-Stenholm 
amendment restores the original Crapo-Harman language.
  Why do we need it? Well, here is the answer: If we are cutting 
personnel funds, 95 percent of those funds are spent in the first year. 
So we do not need this amendment for personnel cuts. But we need this 
amendment when we are cutting construction funds, military construction 
funds, for example, or multiyear procurement programs, which spend out 
slowly. Only a portion of the funds for those types of programs are 
spent in the first year.
  For example, if we voted on a $100 million military construction 
program, it could be that only $6 million, or 6 percent, is spent in 
the first year. So if we cut that program, or cut a courthouse that 
would be valued at $100 million, we are really only applying $6 million 
to the deficit unless we adopt the Harman-Stenholm bipartisan 
amendment.
  Similarly, with major weapons procurement programs, the first year's 
spendout is very small and the balloon comes later. So if we are 
serious about deficit reduction, and I think we are, certainly those of 
us who supported the balanced budget amendment in its various forms 
are, we need to adopt this amendment so that not only is a cut a cut, 
but a cut is a full cut.
  Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, as I did before, that the original 
Crapo-Harman bill as introduced contained this language. The Brewster 
amendment to the emergency supplemental bill which was passed earlier 
this year by 418 votes to 5, contained this language. The more recent 
version of lockbox that we passed as an amendment to the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill did not contain this language, but that was 
necessary as a concession at that time.
  Now we have a freestanding bill. Now we have the opportunity to 
restore the original language that 80 cosponsors of the Crapo bill 
support, that the Concord Coalition supports, that the Taxpayers Union 
support. Every single serious deficit hawk on both sides of the aisle 
ought to support this amendment in order to achieve the glidepath we 
all want to a balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Harman-Stenholm bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from California knows, I admire her 
persistence and her wisdom and her leadership in trying to make the 
best possible piece of legislation we can out of the lockbox, and she 
certainly deserves a great deal of credit for getting it this far down 
the track.
  We have been wrestling with this problem of the outyears, trying to 
find a way to make it work. We want to do it. We have not been able to 
find the exact language. We find there are serious problems when we are 
talking with 

[[Page H 8849]]
programs as opposed to dollars. Of course, we are reminded of the fact 
that we do our appropriations annually, at least at this point. So we 
have felt that we had the opportunity to come in and do what the 
gentlewoman has proposed in a way that would work and is agreed upon by 
all the players.
  I would very much like to accommodate the amendment, and we tried, as 
I said. My view is we should certainly not oppose what you are 
proposing, and I would be very happy to immediately say that I embrace 
it. Wonderfully, it is a great addition and welcome addition if I felt 
we had the language worked out.
  So I am put in the position of trying to figure out can we get this 
thing sorted out and in conference and accepted, as I would like to do, 
or do I point out there are procedural problems with this, which means 
it is not a good idea at this time, until we get the problems all 
sorted out. Frankly, I am not sure we are going to ever get them 
entirely sorted out, because they are of such a nature, when you get 
into talking about trying to deal with outyear implications for dollars 
rather than for programs, I do not know how you do that. Nobody does.
  So the other question we have to measure is the sentiment of the 
body. In my view, the sentiment of the body is we should try and go on 
ahead and try to work this thing out in conference. Therefore, I am 
going to accept the proposed amendment to my amendment, with the 
understanding that we are going to have to work some things out in 
conference because we have not got the language yet.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
appreciate the constructive comments that the gentleman has just made.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman's accepting this 
amendment, if I heard correctly. This, indeed, has been tricky to work 
out. Many of us have spent a lot of time on this amendment, on this 
concept. I would like to declare myself in addition to mother of 
lockbox, a de facto member of the Committee on Rules, since I have 
spent hours and hours over there. But I also want to commend the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goss, and to commend the gentleman from New 
York, Chairman Solomon, for really going the extra mile to make this 
work. I think that if we can get this perfected and if it can apply to 
the out years, we are doing more by this act to balance the budget than 
anything else we have done in this Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I concur with the 
feelings of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. There are some 
procedural problems, as I discussed with the gentlewoman earlier. I 
think that there may be a way to work it out, and if there is, 
certainly we would look forward to it. If I am one of the conferees, we 
will do what we can to try to work with you between now and the time we 
do go to conference to see if there is some way to perfect this 
language that will truly make it work.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
appreciate that. I pledge to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude, as I am very close to 
this center aisle, that when we work in bipartisan fashion on some of 
these very complicated but very important budget reforms, we make more 
progress. So I feel this has been a very excellent debate on the House 
floor. I know it is not over. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm], is waiting to speak. But I congratulate both gentleman 
for the enormous effort made, and also the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo], who is sitting quietly in the back there, for his leadership 
and his friendship.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank Members 
for the bipartisan spirit in this. This is a complicated issue, as we 
have said. We are trying to do the right thing. I hope this is the 
right way to proceed. With the assurances we have from the gentleman 
that we will continue to work in a bipartisan effort, we will accept 
this and see how we can get it sorted out, at least as a placeholder in 
conference, to get the best we can.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I learned a long time ago when you have your amendment 
passed, you do not talk too much, so I will take all the persuasive 
arguments that I was going to use with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and insert them 
into the Record, and accept this in the spirit of bipartisan, something 
we have not seen nearly as much of over the last several months. But I 
hope this is a sign of better things to come.
  This is an idea that I have no doubts whatever can be worked out. All 
of the technical points that the gentleman from Florida has mentioned 
are very real, but they can be worked out in the spirit of cooperation 
that has been indicated today.
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time and insert the 
persuasive arguments that are no longer necessary into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Rules Committee both for bringing 
H.R. 1162 to the floor with an open rule and for the committee's 
substantive, legislative activity on the bill.
  Like so many others who have spoken on the floor today, this is an 
issue I have spent many hours over the past several years working 
towards and I am pleased to see this day finally come. My colleagues, 
Mike Crapo, Jane Harman, Mike Castle, Bill Brewster, John Kasich, Chet 
Edwards, and others have done a terrific job in leading this bipartisan 
effort and I want to thank them for that leadership.
  I intend to vote in support of final passage of this bill, not 
because I think it is a perfect bill, or even as strong a bill as we 
have had proposed over the past several years. But I support it in a 
spirit of legislative compromise which has been noticeably lacking in 
recent months. Contrary to much of the rhetoric which has been 
circulating, not so much around this issue but around some of the 
currently relevant larger issues, I refuse to become part of the army 
which seems to think the political process can move forward without 
compromise.
  I would like to see this bill come a little closer to provisions 
included in the Kasich-Stenholm-Penny common cents reform of last year. 
In my opinion, the ways in which this bill differs from that earlier 
proposal result in undesirable consequences for the budget deficit. But 
I accept that other people had other ideas and so I am willing to 
continue as a foot soldier to improve the status quo, even if it's not 
everything I would like. I hope others might get the hang of that 
concept as the next few months proceed.
  I do intend to support final passage of this bill, but I also want to 
join in one more effort to improve what I believe is the most serious 
shortcoming of this bill before it leaves the House of Representatives. 
Therefore, I rise enthusiastically at this point to speak in behalf of 
the amendment by my colleague from California, my leader in this 
effort, Jane Harman. This amendment will ensure that the full effect of 
spending cuts on appropriations bills are locked into deficit 
reduction.
  H.R. 1162 as it is before us currently affects only allocations of 
spending and discretionary caps for the fiscal year covered by the 
appropriations bill. Thus, the measure would not lock-in the outyear 
savings resulting from spending reduction amendments.
  At first blush, one might assume this criticism is worthy of little 
more than nitpicking from a budget nerd. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. For anyone whose support of this legislation is driven by 
concern about deficit reduction, which I assume is virtually everyone 
supporting this bill, this outyear factor is no small matter. In fact, 
we're talking about this bill cutting in half the potential deficit 
reduction.
  On average, 48 percent of funds appropriated in any year do not 
result in outlays until the second year or later. Therefore, in the 
rhetoric that has surrounded this concept from its beginning, this bill 
doesn't really guarantee that a cut is a cut. What it does is say that 
a cut is half a cut at best.
  I say it is half a cut at best because there is a split-the-
difference formula in the base bill which says that the amount placed 
in the lockbox should be equal to one-half the sum of the amounts in 
the House lockbox and the Senate lockbox. If we assume that current 
trends will continue and the House will typically cut more than the 
Senate, it means that the optimum deficit reduction will never be 
achieved.
  Putting that formula aside, however, I believe that this outyear 
matter is of even greater 

[[Page H 8850]]
importance. The Harman amendment will capture all of the outyear 
savings for deficit reduction.
  Because the Federal budget process is such a complicated one, I would 
like to give an example of what this outyear matter really means. Let's 
assume that this year the Congress appropriates $1 billion for a given 
highway project. Because building a highway takes some time, the 
Department of Transportation may obligate only $100 million of the 
money during the next year. That doesn't mean that the project loses 
the other $900 million; it just means that money will be obligated in 
subsequent years as the highway continues to be built. Eventually, that 
full $1 billion will be spent by the Federal Government on the highway.
  Now, let's say that as part of an across-the-board cut, that highway 
appropriation was cut in the House by 5 percent. Does that mean that 
$50 million will be going to reduce the deficit? Absolutely not. It 
means that $5 million, or 5 percent of the first year's spending can go 
into the House's account. Of course even that amount might be reduced 
if the Senate cuts less, but we won't get into that here.
  Clearly, if you are trying not only to maximize the deficit reduction 
but also are trying to accomplish what the average citizen assumes you 
have done, you need to capture the outyear savings. In today's 
environment, I would say that the trust/credibility aspect of following 
through on what we imply we are doing is just as important as the 
deficit reduction aspect of capturing the outyear savings.
  I believe that Ms. Harman has focused on an absolutely critical 
element of the bill with her amendment. I believe that anyone who cares 
about getting the biggest bang for our deficit-reduction buck, as well 
as anyone who is concerned about rebuilding public confidence in 
Congress, should support this amendment. I urge passage of the Harman 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


               amendment offered by mrs. meek of florida

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. This is not 
the same amendment that I filed in yesterday's Record. I was advised by 
the House Parliamentarian that this new version of the amendment is in 
order.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida: At the end, add 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 8. REQUIREMENT THAT SAVINGS ONLY BE USED TO REDUCE THE 
                   BUDGET DEFICIT.

       Reductions in outlays and reductions in discretionary 
     spending limits specified in section 601(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 resulting from the 
     implementation of the Act shall be used only to reduce the 
     budget deficit of the United States and shall not be used, 
     directly or indirectly, to increase the budget deficit of the 
     United States.

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Florida?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I object. I would like to hear the full 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk will read the amendment.
  The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a clarifying, 
technical amendment to the bill. It should not be controversial.
  My amendment would simply specify that all of the funds saved through 
lock-box spending reductions would be used for deficit reduction, and 
not for tax cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the goal of reducing the Federal 
deficit, although I strongly disagree with how the Republican majority 
is attempting to achieve this goal.
  My amendment will insure that this bill actually does what it is 
advertised to do--cut the deficit.
  The sponsors of this bill say that any cuts in a specific 
appropriations bill made on the floor of the House or the Senate should 
go only to deficit reduction.
  But the actual text of the bill only says that the funds cut on the 
floor cannot be used for other appropriations bills. The reported bill 
does not actually say that the cuts must be used for deficit reduction.
  Thus, the bill leaves open the possibility that the spending cuts 
could be used to pay for a tax cut.
  My amendment corrects this ambiguity and makes it clear that the cuts 
cannot be used to pay for a tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, this House has strongly supported this approach in the 
past.
  The effect of my amendment is identical to a provision of the 
Brewster lockbox amendment adopted by the House on March 15 of this 
year by a resounding vote of 418 to 5.
  Some may argue that my amendment is unnecessary because existing law 
prohibits using cuts in appropriations to pay for tax cuts. But this 
argument is a technical, legal one. It misses the point.
  This Congress is making many, many cuts in spending in the name of 
reducing the deficit. It is therefore important for Congress to clearly 
affirm its intent--in this bill--that cuts in appropriations cannot be 
used to pay for tax cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that those who have already cut programs like 
Head Start, housing for low-income people, job training and similar 
programs will try in the future to make additional cuts.
  I have opposed these cuts in programs to help children, the poor, the 
sick, and the elderly, and I will continue to oppose them in the 
future.
  But it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of the poor to have these 
cuts used to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Let us make it clear to everyone that spending cuts can only be used 
to reduce the deficit.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this debate I said when I came here 17 
years ago I came here for the purpose of trying to stop the defense 
budget of this country from becoming totally inadequate and to do 
everything I could to make it more difficult to spend money, to raise 
taxes, and to place regulatory burdens on the American people.
  I would say to the gentlewomen, as I read her amendment, this 
amendment says that from now on and in the future, if we want to cut 
taxes, we cannot pay for it out of discretionary spending cuts. That, 
to me, is the antithesis of what I came to this Congress for. We are 
here to cut taxes, and we are here to limit speeding. I would hope we 
would defeat the gentlewoman's amendment, as much as we happen to like 
her.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have not seen this amendment in this form until just 
a few minutes ago. I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has characterized the concern we have over here about it.
  As one reads it, it seems harmless enough, but when we think of the 
implications of it, it gets into a situation where we have many 
missions as we go through our budget work. One of them certainly is to 
try to cut taxes, where we can, to reduce the tax burden on the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid this is so broadly worded that it talks 
about steps that we might take with regard to the lockbox, which could 
be interpreted to prohibit us from tax cuts in the same year with 
regard to discretionary funds. I understand what my colleague from 
Florida, I think, is trying to accomplish; to make sure that we 
basically take the savings that come out of the appropriations process 
and use them to reduce the deficit. And that is what this is all about, 
that is what the lockbox is all about.
  I am afraid this creates some uncertainties and
   goes beyond just a lockbox procedure and would tend to tie the hands 
of Members who would be interested in tax cuts in the same fiscal year.

  That, I think, Mr. Chairman, is a serious, serious matter. So what I 
would 

[[Page H 8851]]
urge so that the record is very clear, the testimony at the time we 
passed the lockbox, the Crapo amendment to the Labor, HHS, the 
testimony in the Committee on Rules, the testimony here today is all 
very, very clear. It says that the purpose of the lockbox is to capture 
those savings, and we intend to capture those savings.
  To go further than that and say we also will not cut taxes, I think, 
goes well beyond, frankly, the scope of what we are talking about and 
does cause some complication with regard to the original intent, which 
is the lockbox, which is to capture the savings.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I 
have to join in opposition to this amendment.
  I certainly have the greatest of admiration for my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], but my concern is that, as we 
look at the issue of saving, and now to go, as my friend has just said, 
a step further and jeopardize the ability to reduce the incredible tax 
burden on working Americans, I believe, goes far beyond the purview of 
the intention of the lockbox.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there are many of us, most everyone, 
concerned about the pattern of deficit spending we have seen over the 
past several decades. But we are also concerned about the fact that 
there are so many people out there who feel that the Federal Government 
imposes a tax level which is way too high, and it is our goal as we 
reduce the deficit to also reduce that burden of taxes on working 
Americans.
  It is clear that the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Meek], would joepardize the opportunity to do that. 
For that reason I am compelled to join in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 282, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 657]

                               AYES--144

     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--282

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     de la Garza
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Wilson

                              {time}  1556

  Mr. BREWSTER, Ms. DeLAURO, and Messrs. RICHARDSON, TEJEDA, and ORTIZ 
changed their vote from ``aye'' and ``no.''
  Messrs. HASTINGS of Florida, BEVILL, METCALF, CRAMER, and CARDIN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Quinn, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1162) 
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1162) to establish a 
deficit reduction trust fund and provide for the downward adjustment of 
discretionary spending limits in appropriation bills, pursuant to House 
Resolution 218, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.

[[Page H 8852]]

  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 364, 
noes 59, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 658]

                               AYES--364

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--59

     Abercrombie
     Baker (CA)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     McDermott
     Meek
     Mink
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     de la Garza
     Ensign
     Frost
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Obey
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Tucker
     Wilson

                              {time}  1617

  Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. POMBO, and Mr. PASTOR changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
establish procedures to provide for a deficit reduction lock-box and 
related downward adjustment of discretionary spending limits.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
  

                          ____________________