[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.
____________________