Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2986-H3029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 98, I was attending a White
House bill-signing ceremony on the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
(For text of conference report deemed adopted pursuant to Resolution
391, see proceedings of the House of March 21, 1996, at page H2640.)

[[Page H2987]]

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 1996

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391, I call up
the bill--H.R. 3136--to provide for enactment of the Senior Citizens'
Right to Work Act of 1996, the Line-Item Veto Act, and the Small
Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide for a
permanent increase in the public debt limit, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 391, the amendments printed in House Report 104-500
are adopted.
The text of H.R. 3136, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 391,
is as follows:

H.R. 3136

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 ``Contract with America
Advancement Act of 1996''.
TITLE I--SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMITATION AMENDMENTS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE OF TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens' Right to
Work Act of 1996''.

SEC. 102. INCREASES IN MONTHLY EXEMPT AMOUNT FOR PURPOSES OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMIT.

(a) Increase in Monthly Exempt Amount for Individuals Who
Have Attained Retirement Age.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, the exempt amount which is applicable to an
individual who has attained retirement age (as defined in
section 216(l)) before the close of the taxable year involved
shall be--
``(i) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1995
and before 1997, $1,041.66\2/3\,
``(ii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1996
and before 1998, $1,125.00,
``(iii) for each month of any taxable year ending after
1997 and before 1999, $1,208.33\1/3\,
``(iv) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1998
and before 2000, $1,291.66\2/3\,
``(v) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1999
and before 2001, $1,416.66\2/3\,
``(vi) for each month of any taxable year ending after 2000
and before 2002, $2,083.33\1/3\, and
``(vii) for each month of any taxable year ending after
2001 and before 2003, $2,500.00.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 203(f)(8)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
403(f)(8)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``the taxable year ending after 1993 and
before 1995'' and inserting ``the taxable year ending after
2001 and before 2003 (with respect to individuals described
in subparagraph (D)) or the taxable year ending after 1993
and before 1995 (with respect to other individuals)''; and
(B) in subclause (II), by striking ``for 1992'' and
inserting ``for 2000 (with respect to individuals described
in subparagraph (D)) or 1992 (with respect to other
individuals)''.
(2) The second sentence of section 223(d)(4)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``the exempt
amount under section 203(f)(8) which is applicable to
individuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof'' and
inserting the following: ``an amount equal to the exempt
amount which would be applicable under section 203(f)(8), to
individuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof, if section
102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 had not
been enacted''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after 1995.

SEC. 103. CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEWS.

(a) Authorization for Appropriations for Continuing
Disability Reviews.--Section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``Of the amounts authorized to be made
available out of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
under the preceding sentence, there are hereby authorized to
be made available from either or both of such Trust Funds for
continuing disability reviews--
``(i) for fiscal year 1996, $260,000,000;
``(ii) for fiscal year 1997, $360,000,000;
``(iii) for fiscal year 1998, $570,000,000;
``(iv) for fiscal year 1999, $720,000,000;
``(v) for fiscal year 2000, $720,000,000;
``(vi) for fiscal year 2001, $720,000,000; and
``(viii) for fiscal year 2002, $720,000,000.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `continuing
disability review' means a review conducted pursuant to
section 221(i) and a review or disability eligibility
redetermination conducted to determine the continuing
disability and eligibility of a recipient of benefits under
the supplemental security income program under title XVI,
including any review or redetermination conducted pursuant to
section 207 or 208 of the Social Security Independence and
Program Improvements Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-296).''.
(b) Adjustment to Discretionary Spending Limits.--Section
251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) Continuing disability reviews.--(i) Whenever a bill
or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal year
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 is enacted that
specifies an amount for continuing disability reviews under
the heading `Limitation on Administrative Expenses' for the
Social Security Administration, the adjustments for that
fiscal year shall be the additional new budget authority
provided in that Act for such reviews for that fiscal year
and the additional outlays flowing from such amounts, but
shall not exceed--
``(I) for fiscal year 1996, $15,000,000 in additional new
budget authority and $60,000,000 in additional outlays;
``(II) for fiscal year 1997, $25,000,000 in additional new
budget authority and $160,000,000 in additional outlays;
``(III) for fiscal year 1998, $145,000,000 in additional
new budget authority and $370,000,000 in additional outlays;
``(IV) for fiscal year 1999, $280,000,000 in additional new
budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays;
``(V) for fiscal year 2000, $317,500,000 in additional new
budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays;
``(VI) for fiscal year 2001, $317,500,000 in additional new
budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays; and
``(VII) for fiscal year 2002, $317,500,000 in additional
new budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays.
``(ii) As used in this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `continuing disability reviews' has the
meaning given such term by section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act;
``(II) the term `additional new budget authority' means new
budget authority provided for a fiscal year, in excess of
$100,000,000, for the Supplemental Security Income program
and specified to pay for the costs of continuing disability
reviews attributable to the Supplemental Security Income
program; and
``(III) the term `additional outlays' means outlays, in
excess of $200,000,000 in a fiscal year, flowing from the
amounts specified for continuing disability reviews under the
heading `Limitation on Administrative Expenses' for the
Social Security Administration, including outlays in that
fiscal year flowing from amounts specified in Acts enacted
for prior fiscal years (but not before 1996).''.
(c) Budget Allocation Adjustment by Budget Committee.--
Section 606 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding the following new
subsection:
``(e) Continuing Disability Review Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--(A) For fiscal year 1996, upon the
enactment of the Contract with America Advancement Act of
1996, the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the
Senate and House of Representatives shall make the
adjustments referred to in subparagraph (C) to reflect
$15,000,000 in additional new budget authority and
$60,000,000 in additional outlays for continuing disability
reviews (as defined in section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act).
``(B) When the Committee on Appropriations reports an
appropriations measure for fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, or 2002 that specifies an amount for continuing
disability reviews under the heading `Limitation on
Administrative Expenses' for the Social Security
Administration, or when a conference committee submits a
conference report thereon, the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the Senate or House of Representatives
(whichever is appropriate) shall make the adjustments
referred to in subparagraph (C) to reflect the additional new
budget authority for continuing disability reviews provided
in that measure or conference report and the additional
outlays flowing from such amounts for continuing disability
reviews.
``(C) The adjustments referred to in this subparagraph
consist of adjustments to--
``(i) the discretionary spending limits for that fiscal
year as set forth in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget;
``(ii) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives for that
fiscal year under sections 302(a) and 602(a); and
``(iii) the appropriate budgetary aggregates for that
fiscal year in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
``(D) The adjustments under this paragraph for any fiscal
year shall not exceed the levels set forth in section
251(b)(2)(H) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 for that fiscal year. The adjusted
discretionary spending limits, allocations, and aggregates
under this paragraph shall be considered the appropriate
limits, allocations, and aggregates for purposes of
congressional enforcement of this Act and concurrent budget
resolutions under this Act.
``(2) Reporting revised suballocations.--Following the
adjustments made under paragraph (1), the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to
sections 302(b) and 602(b) of this Act to carry out this
subsection.
``(3) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms
`continuing disability reviews', `additional new budget
authority', and `additional outlays' shall have the same
meanings as provided in section 251(b)(2)(H)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
(d) Use of Funds and Reports.--

[[Page H2988]]

(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall
ensure that funds made available for continuing disability
reviews (as defined in section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act) are used, to the greatest extent practicable,
to maximize the combined savings in the old-age, survivors,
and disability insurance, supplemental security income,
medicare, and medicaid programs.
(2) Report.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall
provide annually (at the conclusion of each of the fiscal
years 1996 through 2002) to the Congress a report on
continuing disability reviews which includes--
(A) the amount spent on continuing disability reviews in
the fiscal year covered by the report, and the number of
reviews conducted, by category of review;
(B) the results of the continuing disability reviews in
terms of cessations of benefits or determinations of
continuing eligibility, by program; and
(C) the estimated savings over the short-, medium-, and
long-term to the old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance, supplemental security income, medicare, and
medicaid programs from continuing disability reviews which
result in cessations of benefits and the estimated present
value of such savings.
(e) Office of Chief Actuary in the Social Security
Administration.--
(1) In general.--Section 702 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 902) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:

``Chief Actuary

``(c)(1) There shall be in the Administration a Chief
Actuary, who shall be appointed by, and in direct line of
authority to, the Commissioner. The Chief Actuary shall be
appointed from individuals who have demonstrated, by their
education and experience, superior expertise in the actuarial
sciences. The Chief Actuary shall serve as the chief
actuarial officer of the Administration, and shall exercise
such duties as are appropriate for the office of the Chief
Actuary and in accordance with professional standards of
actuarial independence. The Chief Actuary may be removed only
for cause.
``(2) The Chief Actuary shall be compensated at the highest
rate of basic pay for the Senior Executive Service under
section 5382(b) of title 5, United States Code.''.
(2) Effective date of subsection.--The amendments made by
this subsection shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 104. ENTITLEMENT OF STEPCHILDREN TO CHILD'S INSURANCE
BENEFITS BASED ON ACTUAL DEPENDENCY ON
STEPPARENT SUPPORT.

(a) Requirement of Actual Dependency for Future
Entitlements.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(d)(4) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``was living
with or''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to benefits of individuals who
become entitled to such benefits for months after the third
month following the month in which this Act is enacted.
(b) Termination of Child's Insurance Benefits Based on Work
Record of Stepparent Upon Natural Parent's Divorce From
Stepparent.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(d)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) if the benefits under this subsection are based on
the wages and self-employment income of a stepparent who is
subsequently divorced from such child's natural parent, the
month after the month in which such divorce becomes final.''.
(2) Notification.--Section 202(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(d)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
``(10) For purposes of paragraph (1)(H)--
``(A) each stepparent shall notify the Commissioner of
Social Security of any divorce upon such divorce becoming
final; and
``(B) the Commissioner shall annually notify any stepparent
of the rule for termination described in paragraph (1)(H) and
of the requirement described in subparagraph (A).''.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply with
respect to final divorces occurring after the third month
following the month in which this Act is enacted.
(B) The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 105. DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS AND
ALCOHOLICS.

(a) Amendments Relating to Title II Disability Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 223(d)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) An individual shall not be considered to be disabled
for purposes of this title if alcoholism or drug addiction
would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor
material to the Commissioner's determination that the
individual is disabled.''.
(2) Representative payee requirements.--
(A) Section 205(j)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
405(j)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) In the case of an individual entitled to benefits
based on disability, the payment of such benefits shall be
made to a representative payee if the Commissioner of Social
Security determines that such payment would serve the
interest of the individual because the individual also has an
alcoholism or drug addiction condition (as determined by the
Commissioner) and the individual is incapable of managing
such benefits.''.
(B) Section 205(j)(2)(C)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
405(j)(2)(C)(v)) is amended by striking ``entitled to
benefits'' and all that follows through ``under a
disability'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
(C) Section 205(j)(2)(D)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
405(j)(2)(D)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking all that follows
``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in paragraph
(1)(B).''.
(D) Section 205(j)(4)(A)(i)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
405(j)(4)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``entitled to
benefits'' and all that follows through ``under a
disability'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
(3) Treatment referrals for individuals with an alcoholism
or drug addiction condition.--Section 222 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 422) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:

``Treatment Referrals for Individuals with an Alcoholism or Drug
Addiction Condition

``(e) In the case of any individual whose benefits under
this title are paid to a representative payee pursuant to
section 205(j)(1)(B), the Commissioner of Social Security
shall refer such individual to the appropriate State agency
administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment
services approved under subpart II of part B of title XIX of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.).''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 225 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 425(c)) is repealed.
(5) Effective dates.--
(A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (4) shall
apply to any individual who applies for, or whose claim is
finally adjudicated by the Commissioner of Social Security
with respect to, benefits under title II of the Social
Security Act based on disability on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and, in the case of any individual who
has applied for, and whose claim has been finally adjudicated
by the Commissioner with respect to, such benefits before
such date of enactment, such amendments shall apply only with
respect to such benefits for months beginning on or after
January 1, 1997.
(B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall
apply with respect to benefits for which applications are
filed after the third month following the month in which this
Act is enacted.
(C) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notify each
individual who is entitled to monthly insurance benefits
under title II of the Social Security Act based on disability
for the month in which this Act is enacted and whose
entitlement to such benefits would terminate by reason of the
amendments made by this subsection. If such an individual
reapplies for benefits under title II of such Act (as amended
by this Act) based on disability within 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social
Security shall, not later than January 1, 1997, complete the
entitlement redetermination (including a new medical
determination) with respect to such individual pursuant to
the procedures of such title.
(b) Amendments Relating to SSI Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(I) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an individual shall
not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title
if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this
subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the
Commissioner's determination that the individual is
disabled.''.
(2) Representative payee requirements.--
(A) Section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended to read as follows:
``(II) In the case of an individual eligible for benefits
under this title by reason of disability, the payment of such
benefits shall be made to a representative payee if the
Commissioner of Social Security determines that such payment
would serve the interest of the individual because the
individual also has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition
(as determined by the Commissioner) and the individual is
incapable of managing such benefits.''.
(B) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(vii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(B)(vii)) is amended by striking ``eligible for
benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and
inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
(C) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II)) is amended by striking all that
follows ``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in
subparagraph (A)(ii)(II).''.
(D) Section 1631(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking ``eligible for
benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and
inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
(3) Treatment referrals for individuals with an alcoholism
or drug addiction condition.--Title XVI of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1381

[[Page H2989]]

et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``TREATMENT REFERRALS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH AN ALCOHOLISM OR DRUG
ADDICTION CONDITION

``Sec. 1636. In the case of any individual whose benefits
under this title are paid to a representative payee pursuant
to section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), the Commissioner of Social
Security shall refer such individual to the appropriate State
agency administering the State plan for substance abuse
treatment services approved under subpart II of part B of
title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21
et seq.).''.
(4) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1611(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is
amended by striking paragraph (3).
(B) Section 1634 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383c) is amended
by striking subsection (e).
(5) Effective dates.--
(A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (4) shall
apply to any individual who applies for, or whose claim is
finally adjudicated by the Commissioner of Social Security
with respect to, supplemental security income benefits under
title XVI of the Social Security Act based on disability on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act, and, in the
case of any individual who has applied for, and whose claim
has been finally adjudicated by the Commissioner with respect
to, such benefits before such date of enactment, such
amendments shall apply only with respect to such benefits for
months beginning on or after January 1, 1997.
(B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall
apply with respect to supplemental security income benefits
under title XVI of the Social Security Act for which
applications are filed after the third month following the
month in which this Act is enacted.
(C) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notify each
individual who is eligible for supplemental security income
benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act for the
month in which this Act is enacted and whose eligibility for
such benefits would terminate by reason of the amendments
made by this subsection. If such an individual reapplies for
supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of such
Act (as amended by this Act) within 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social
Security shall, not later than January 1, 1997, complete the
eligibility redetermination (including a new medical
determination) with respect to such individual pursuant to
the procedures of such title.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase
``supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of
the Social Security Act'' includes supplementary payments
pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration under
section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act and payments
pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(b) of
Public Law 93-66.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 201(c) of the Social
Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 425 note) is repealed.
(d) Supplemental Funding for Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs.--
(1) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated to
supplement State and Tribal programs funded under section
1933 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33),
$50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
(2) Additional funds.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall be in addition to any funds otherwise appropriated
for allotments under section 1933 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33) and shall be allocated
pursuant to such section 1933.
(3) Use of Funds.--A State or Tribal government receiving
an allotment under this subsection shall consider as
priorities, for purposes of expending funds allotted under
this subsection, activities relating to the treatment of the
abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

SEC. 106. PILOT STUDY OF EFFICACY OF PROVIDING INDIVIDUALIZED
INFORMATION TO RECIPIENTS OF OLD-AGE AND
SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--During a 2-year period beginning as soon
as practicable in 1996, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall conduct a pilot study of the efficacy of providing
certain individualized information to recipients of monthly
insurance benefits under section 202 of the Social Security
Act, designed to promote better understanding of their
contributions and benefits under the social security system.
The study shall involve solely beneficiaries whose
entitlement to such benefits first occurred in or after 1984
and who have remained entitled to such benefits for a
continuous period of not less than 5 years. The number of
such recipients involved in the study shall be of sufficient
size to generate a statistically valid sample for purposes of
the study, but shall not exceed 600,000 beneficiaries.
(b) Annualized Statements.--During the course of the study,
the Commissioner shall provide to each of the beneficiaries
involved in the study one annualized statement, setting forth
the following information:
(1) an estimate of the aggregate wages and self-employment
income earned by the individual on whose wages and self-
employment income the benefit is based, as shown on the
records of the Commissioner as of the end of the last
calendar year ending prior to the beneficiary's first month
of entitlement;
(2) an estimate of the aggregate of the employee and self-
employment contributions, and the aggregate of the employer
contributions (separately identified), made with respect to
the wages and self-employment income on which the benefit is
based, as shown on the records of the Commissioner as of the
end of the calendar year preceding the beneficiary's first
month of entitlement; and
(3) an estimate of the total amount paid as benefits under
section 202 of the Social Security Act based on such wages
and self-employment income, as shown on the records of the
Commissioner as of the end of the last calendar year
preceding the issuance of the statement for which complete
information is available.
(c) Inclusion With Matter Otherwise Distributed to
Beneficiaries.--The Commissioner shall ensure that reports
provided pursuant to this section are, to the maximum extent
practicable, included with other reports currently provided
to beneficiaries on an annual basis.
(d) Report to the Congress.--The Commissioner shall report
to each House of the Congress regarding the results of the
pilot study conducted pursuant to this section not later than
60 days after the completion of such study.

SEC. 107. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST
FUNDS.

(a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS

``Sec. 1145. (a) In General.--No officer or employee of the
United States shall--
``(1) delay the deposit of any amount into (or delay the
credit of any amount to) any Federal fund or otherwise vary
from the normal terms, procedures, or timing for making such
deposits or credits,
``(2) refrain from the investment in public debt
obligations of amounts in any Federal fund, or
``(3) redeem prior to maturity amounts in any Federal fund
which are invested in public debt obligations for any purpose
other than the payment of benefits or administrative expenses
from such Federal fund.
``(b) Public Debt Obligation.--For purposes of this
section, the term `public debt obligation' means any
obligation subject to the public debt limit established under
section 3101 of title 31, United States Code.
``(c) Federal Fund.--For purposes of this section, the term
`Federal fund' means--
``(1) the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund;
``(2) the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund;
``(3) the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; and
``(4) the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust
Fund.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 108. PROFESSIONAL STAFF FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY
BOARD.

Section 703(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
903(i)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting after
``Staff Director'' the following: ``, and three professional
staff members one of whom shall be appointed from among
individuals approved by the members of the Board who are not
members of the political party represented by the majority of
the Board,''.
TITLE II--LINE ITEM VETO

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Line Item Veto Act''.

SEC. 202. LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Title X of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new part:

``Part C--Line Item Veto

``LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

``Sec. 1021. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the
provisions of parts A and B, and subject to the provisions of
this part, the President may, with respect to any bill or
joint resolution that has been signed into law pursuant to
Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United
States, cancel in whole--
``(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority;
``(2) any item of new direct spending; or
``(3) any limited tax benefit;
if the President--
``(A) determines that such cancellation will--
``(i) reduce the Federal budget deficit;
``(ii) not impair any essential Government functions; and
``(iii) not harm the national interest; and
``(B) notifies the Congress of such cancellation by
transmitting a special message, in accordance with section
1022, within five calendar days (excluding Sundays) after the
enactment of the law providing the dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority, item of new direct spending,
or limited tax benefit that was canceled.
``(b) Identification of Cancellations.--In identifying
dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of
new direct spending, and limited tax benefits for
cancellation, the President shall--
``(1) consider the legislative history, construction, and
purposes of the law which contains such dollar amounts,
items, or benefits;

[[Page H2990]]

``(2) consider any specific sources of information
referenced in such law or, in the absence of specific sources
of information, the best available information; and
``(3) use the definitions contained in section 1026 in
applying this part to the specific provisions of such law.
``(c) Exception for Disapproval Bills.--The authority
granted by subsection (a) shall not apply to any dollar
amount of discretionary budget authority, item of new direct
spending, or limited tax benefit contained in any law that is
a disapproval bill as defined in section 1026.

``SPECIAL MESSAGES

``Sec. 1022. (a) In General.--For each law from which a
cancellation has been made under this part, the President
shall transmit a single special message to the Congress.
``(b) Contents.--
``(1) The special message shall specify--
``(A) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority,
item of new direct spending, or limited tax benefit which has
been canceled, and provide a corresponding reference number
for each cancellation;
``(B) the determinations required under section 1021(a),
together with any supporting material;
``(C) the reasons for the cancellation;
``(D) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated
fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the cancellation;
``(E) all facts, circumstances and considerations relating
to or bearing upon the cancellation, and to the maximum
extent practicable, the estimated effect of the cancellation
upon the objects, purposes and programs for which the
canceled authority was provided; and
``(F) include the adjustments that will be made pursuant to
section 1024 to the discretionary spending limits under
section 601 and an evaluation of the effects of those
adjustments upon the sequestration procedures of section 251
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
``(2) In the case of a cancellation of any dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority or item of new direct
spending, the special message shall also include, if
applicable-
``(A) any account, department, or establishment of the
Government for which such budget authority was to have been
available for obligation and the specific project or
governmental functions involved;
``(B) the specific States and congressional districts, if
any, affected by the cancellation; and
``(C) the total number of cancellations imposed during the
current session of Congress on States and congressional
districts identified in subparagraph (B).
``(c) Transmission of Special Messages to House and
Senate.--
``(1) The President shall transmit to the Congress each
special message under this part within five calendar days
(excluding Sundays) after enactment of the law to which the
cancellation applies. Each special message shall be
transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate on
the same calendar day. Such special message shall be
delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives if the
House is not in session, and to the Secretary of the Senate
if the Senate is not in session.
``(2) Any special message transmitted under this part shall
be printed in the first issue of the Federal Register
published after such transmittal.

``CANCELLATION EFFECTIVE UNLESS DISAPPROVED

``Sec. 1023. (a) In General.--The cancellation of any
dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item of new
direct spending, or limited tax benefit shall take effect
upon receipt in the House of Representatives and the Senate
of the special message notifying the Congress of the
cancellation. If a disapproval bill for such special message
is enacted into law, then all cancellations disapproved in
that law shall be null and void and any such dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority, item of new direct spending,
or limited tax benefit shall be effective as of the original
date provided in the law to which the cancellation applied.
``(b) Commensurate Reductions in Discretionary Budget
Authority.--Upon the cancellation of a dollar amount of
discretionary budget authority under subsection (a), the
total appropriation for each relevant account of which that
dollar amount is a part shall be simultaneously reduced by
the dollar amount of that cancellation.

``DEFICIT REDUCTION

``Sec. 1024. (a) In General.--
``(1) Discretionary budget authority.--OMB shall, for each
dollar amount of discretionary budget authority and for each
item of new direct spending canceled from an appropriation
law under section 1021(a)--
``(A) reflect the reduction that results from such
cancellation in the estimates required by section 251(a)(7)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 in accordance with that Act, including an estimate of
the reduction of the budget authority and the reduction in
outlays flowing from such reduction of budget authority for
each outyear; and
``(B) include a reduction to the discretionary spending
limits for budget authority and outlays in accordance with
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
for each applicable fiscal year set forth in section
601(a)(2) by amounts equal to the amounts for each fiscal
year estimated pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(2) Direct spending and limited tax benefits.--(A) OMB
shall, for each item of new direct spending or limited tax
benefit canceled from a law under section 1021(a), estimate
the deficit decrease caused by the cancellation of such item
or benefit in that law and include such estimate as a
separate entry in the report prepared pursuant to section
252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
``(B) OMB shall not include any change in the deficit
resulting from a cancellation of any item of new direct
spending or limited tax benefit, or the enactment of a
disapproval bill for any such cancellation, under this part
in the estimates and reports required by sections 252(b) and
254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
``(b) Adjustments to Spending Limits.--After ten calendar
days (excluding Sundays) after the expiration of the time
period in section 1025(b)(1) for expedited congressional
consideration of a disapproval bill for a special message
containing a cancellation of discretionary budget authority,
OMB shall make the reduction included in subsection (a)(1)(B)
as part of the next sequester report required by section 254
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to a
cancellation if a disapproval bill or other law that
disapproves that cancellation is enacted into law prior to 10
calendar days (excluding Sundays) after the expiration of the
time period set forth in section 1025(b)(1).
``(d) Congressional Budget Office Estimates.--As soon as
practicable after the President makes a cancellation from a
law under section 1021(a), the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall provide the Committees on the Budget of
the House of Representatives and the Senate with an estimate
of the reduction of the budget authority and the reduction in
outlays flowing from such reduction of budget authority for
each outyear.

``EXPEDITED CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF DISAPPROVAL BILLS

``Sec. 1025. (a) Receipt and Referral of Special Message.--
Each special message transmitted under this part shall be
referred to the Committee on the Budget and the appropriate
committee or committees of the Senate and the Committee on
the Budget and the appropriate committee or committees of the
House of Representatives. Each such message shall be printed
as a document of the House of Representatives.
``(b) Time Period for Expedited Procedures.--
``(1) There shall be a congressional review period of 30
calendar days of session, beginning on the first calendar day
of session after the date on which the special message is
received in the House of Representatives and the Senate,
during which the procedures contained in this section shall
apply to both Houses of Congress.
``(2) In the House of Representatives the procedures set
forth in this section shall not apply after the end of the
period described in paragraph (1).
``(3) If Congress adjourns at the end of a Congress prior
to the expiration of the period described in paragraph (1)
and a disapproval bill was then pending in either House of
Congress or a committee thereof (including a conference
committee of the two Houses of Congress), or was pending
before the President, a disapproval bill for the same special
message may be introduced within the first five calendar days
of session of the next Congress and shall be treated as a
disapproval bill under this part, and the time period
described in paragraph (1) shall commence on the day of
introduction of that disapproval bill.
``(c) Introduction of Disapproval Bills.--(1) In order for
a disapproval bill to be considered under the procedures set
forth in this section, the bill must meet the definition of a
disapproval bill and must be introduced no later than the
fifth calendar day of session following the beginning of the
period described in subsection (b)(1).
``(2) In the case of a disapproval bill introduced in the
House of Representatives, such bill shall include in the
first blank space referred to in section 1026(6)(C) a list of
the reference numbers for all cancellations made by the
President in the special message to which such disapproval
bill relates.
``(d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--(1)
Any committee of the House of Representatives to which a
disapproval bill is referred shall report it without
amendment, and with or without recommendation, not later than
the seventh calendar day of session after the date of its
introduction. If any committee fails to report the bill
within that period, it is in order to move that the House
discharge the committee from further consideration of the
bill, except that such a motion may not be made after the
committee has reported a disapproval bill with respect to the
same special message. A motion to discharge may be made only
by a Member favoring the bill (but only at a time or place
designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule of the
day after the calendar day on which the Member offering the
motion announces to the House his intention to do so and the
form of the motion). The motion is highly privileged. Debate
thereon shall be limited to not more than one hour, the time
to be divided in the House equally between a proponent

[[Page H2991]]

and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
``(2) After a disapproval bill is reported or a committee
has been discharged from further consideration, it is in
order to move that the House resolve into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration
of the bill. If reported and the report has been available
for at least one calendar day, all points of order against
the bill and against consideration of the bill are waived. If
discharged, all points of order against the bill and against
consideration of the bill are waived. The motion is highly
privileged. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the
motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
During consideration of the bill in the Committee of the
Whole, the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
General debate shall proceed, shall be confined to the bill,
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by a proponent and an opponent of the bill. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Only one motion to rise shall be in order, except if offered
by the manager. No amendment to the bill is in order, except
any Member if supported by 49 other Members (a quorum being
present) may offer an amendment striking the reference number
or numbers of a cancellation or cancellations from the bill.
Consideration of the bill for amendment shall not exceed one
hour excluding time for recorded votes and quorum calls. No
amendment shall be subject to further amendment, except pro
forma amendments for the purposes of debate only. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion. A motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the
bill shall not be in order.
``(3) Appeals from decisions of the Chair regarding
application of the rules of the House of Representatives to
the procedure relating to a disapproval bill shall be decided
without debate.
``(4) It shall not be in order to consider under this
subsection more than one disapproval bill for the same
special message except for consideration of a similar Senate
bill (unless the House has already rejected a disapproval
bill for the same special message) or more than one motion to
discharge described in paragraph (1) with respect to a
disapproval bill for that special message.
``(e) Consideration in the Senate.--
``(1) Referral and reporting.--Any disapproval bill
introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the appropriate
committee or committees. A committee to which a disapproval
bill has been referred shall report the bill not later than
the seventh day of session following the date of introduction
of that bill. If any committee fails to report the bill
within that period, that committee shall be automatically
discharged from further consideration of the bill and the
bill shall be placed on the Calendar.
``(2) Disapproval bill from house.--When the Senate
receives from the House of Representatives a disapproval
bill, such bill shall not be referred to committee and shall
be placed on the Calendar.
``(3) Consideration of single disapproval bill.--After the
Senate has proceeded to the consideration of a disapproval
bill for a special message, then no other disapproval bill
originating in that same House relating to that same message
shall be subject to the procedures set forth in this
subsection.
``(4) Amendments.--
``(A) Amendments in order.--The only amendments in order to
a disapproval bill are--
``(i) an amendment that strikes the reference number of a
cancellation from the disapproval bill; and
``(ii) an amendment that only inserts the reference number
of a cancellation included in the special message to which
the disapproval bill relates that is not already contained in
such bill.
``(B) Waiver or appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Senators, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate--
``(i) to waive or suspend this paragraph; or
``(ii) to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this paragraph.
``(5) Motion nondebatable.--A motion to proceed to
consideration of a disapproval bill under this subsection
shall not be debatable. It shall not be in order to move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed was
adopted or rejected, although subsequent motions to proceed
may be made under this paragraph.
``(6) Limit on consideration.-- (A) After no more than 10
hours of consideration of a disapproval bill, the Senate
shall proceed, without intervening action or debate (except
as permitted under paragraph (9)), to vote on the final
disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not
then pending and to the exclusion of all motions, except a
motion to reconsider or to table.
``(B) A single motion to extend the time for consideration
under subparagraph (A) for no more than an additional five
hours is in order prior to the expiration of such time and
shall be decided without debate.
``(C) The time for debate on the disapproval bill shall be
equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority
Leader or their designees.
``(7) Debate on amendments.--Debate on any amendment to a
disapproval bill shall be limited to one hour, equally
divided and controlled by the Senator proposing the amendment
and the majority manager, unless the majority manager is in
favor of the amendment, in which case the minority manager
shall be in control of the time in opposition.
``(8) No motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a
disapproval bill shall not be in order.
``(9) Disposition of senate disapproval bill.--If the
Senate has read for the third time a disapproval bill that
originated in the Senate, then it shall be in order at any
time thereafter to move to proceed to the consideration of a
disapproval bill for the same special message received from
the House of Representatives and placed on the Calendar
pursuant to paragraph (2), strike all after the enacting
clause, substitute the text of the Senate disapproval bill,
agree to the Senate amendment, and vote on final disposition
of the House disapproval bill, all without any intervening
action or debate.
``(10) Consideration of house message.--Consideration in
the Senate of all motions, amendments, or appeals necessary
to dispose of a message from the House of Representatives on
a disapproval bill shall be limited to not more than four
hours. Debate on each motion or amendment shall be limited to
30 minutes. Debate on any appeal or point of order that is
submitted in connection with the disposition of the House
message shall be limited to 20 minutes. Any time for debate
shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
the majority manager, unless the majority manager is a
proponent of the motion, amendment, appeal, or point of
order, in which case the minority manager shall be in control
of the time in opposition.
``(f) Consideration in Conference--
``(1) Convening of conference.--In the case of disagreement
between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a
disapproval bill passed by both Houses, conferees should be
promptly appointed and a conference promptly convened, if
necessary.
``(2) House consideration.--(A) Notwithstanding any other
rule of the House of Representatives, it shall be in order to
consider the report of a committee of conference relating to
a disapproval bill provided such report has been available
for one calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal
holidays, unless the House is in session on such a day) and
the accompanying statement shall have been filed in the
House.
``(B) Debate in the House of Representatives on the
conference report and any amendments in disagreement on any
disapproval bill shall each be limited to not more than one
hour equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an
opponent. A motion to further limit debate is not debatable.
A motion to recommit the conference report is not in order,
and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the conference report is agreed to or disagreed to.
``(3) Senate consideration.--Consideration in the Senate of
the conference report and any amendments in disagreement on a
disapproval bill shall be limited to not more than four hours
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to recommit the
conference report is not in order.
``(4) Limits on scope.--(A) When a disagreement to an
amendment in the nature of a substitute has been referred to
a conference, the conferees shall report those cancellations
that were included in both the bill and the amendment, and
may report a cancellation included in either the bill or the
amendment, but shall not include any other matter.
``(B) When a disagreement on an amendment or amendments of
one House to the disapproval bill of the other House has been
referred to a committee of conference, the conferees shall
report those cancellations upon which both Houses agree and
may report any or all of those cancellations upon which there
is disagreement, but shall not include any other matter.

``DEFINITIONS

``Sec. 1026. As used in this part:
``(1) Appropriation law.--The term `appropriation law'
means an Act referred to in section 105 of title 1, United
States Code, including any general or special appropriation
Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or
continuing appropriations, that has been signed into law
pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the
United States.
``(2) Calendar day.--The term `calendar day' means a
standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
``(3) Calendar days of session.--The term `calendar days of
session' shall mean only those days on which both Houses of
Congress are in session.
``(4) Cancel.--The term `cancel' or `cancellation' means--
``(A) with respect to any dollar amount of discretionary
budget authority, to rescind;
``(B) with respect to any item of new direct spending--
``(i) that is budget authority provided by law (other than
an appropriation law), to prevent such budget authority from
having legal force or effect;

[[Page H2992]]

``(ii) that is entitlement authority, to prevent the
specific legal obligation of the United States from having
legal force or effect; or
``(iii) through the food stamp program, to prevent the
specific provision of law that results in an increase in
budget authority or outlays for that program from having
legal force or effect; and
``(C) with respect to a limited tax benefit, to prevent the
specific provision of law that provides such benefit from
having legal force or effect.
``(5) Direct spending.--The term `direct spending' means--
``(A) budget authority provided by law (other than an
appropriation law);
``(B) entitlement authority; and
``(C) the food stamp program.
``(6) Disapproval bill.--The term `disapproval bill' means
a bill or joint resolution which only disapproves one or more
cancellations of dollar amounts of discretionary budget
authority, items of new direct spending, or limited tax
benefits in a special message transmitted by the President
under this part and--
``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A bill
disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President
on ________', the blank space being filled in with the date
of transmission of the relevant special message and the
public law number to which the message relates;
``(B) which does not have a preamble; and
``(C) which provides only the following after the enacting
clause: `That Congress disapproves of cancellations
________', the blank space being filled in with a list by
reference number of one or more cancellations contained in
the President's special message, `as transmitted by the
President in a special message on ________', the blank space
being filled in with the appropriate date, `regarding
________.', the blank space being filled in with the public
law number to which the special message relates.
``(7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget authority.--(A)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term `dollar
amount of discretionary budget authority' means the entire
dollar amount of budget authority--
``(i) specified in an appropriation law, or the entire
dollar amount of budget authority required to be allocated by
a specific proviso in an appropriation law for which a
specific dollar figure was not included;
``(ii) represented separately in any table, chart, or
explanatory text included in the statement of managers or the
governing committee report accompanying such law;
``(iii) required to be allocated for a specific program,
project, or activity in a law (other than an appropriation
law) that mandates the expenditure of budget authority from
accounts, programs, projects, or activities for which budget
authority is provided in an appropriation law;
``(iv) represented by the product of the estimated
procurement cost and the total quantity of items specified in
an appropriation law or included in the statement of managers
or the governing committee report accompanying such law; and
``(v) represented by the product of the estimated
procurement cost and the total quantity of items required to
be provided in a law (other than an appropriation law) that
mandates the expenditure of budget authority from accounts,
programs, projects, or activities for which budget authority
is provided in an appropriation law.
``(B) The term `dollar amount of discretionary budget
authority' does not include--
``(i) direct spending;
``(ii) budget authority in an appropriation law which funds
direct spending provided for in other law;
``(iii) any existing budget authority rescinded or canceled
in an appropriation law; or
``(iv) any restriction, condition, or limitation in an
appropriation law or the accompanying statement of managers
or committee reports on the expenditure of budget authority
for an account, program, project, or activity, or on
activities involving such expenditure.
``(8) Item of new direct spending.--The term `item of new
direct spending' means any specific provision of law that is
estimated to result in an increase in budget authority or
outlays for direct spending relative to the most recent
levels calculated pursuant to section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(9) Limited tax benefit.--(A) The term `limited tax
benefit' means--
``(i) any revenue-losing provision which provides a Federal
tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or
fewer beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
in any fiscal year for which the provision is in effect; and
``(ii) any Federal tax provision which provides temporary
or permanent transitional relief for 10 or fewer
beneficiaries in any fiscal year from a change to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) A provision shall not be treated as described in
subparagraph (A)(i) if the effect of that provision is that--
``(i) all persons in the same industry or engaged in the
same type of activity receive the same treatment;
``(ii) all persons owning the same type of property, or
issuing the same type of investment, receive the same
treatment; or
``(iii) any difference in the treatment of persons is based
solely on--
``(I) in the case of businesses and associations, the size
or form of the business or association involved;
``(II) in the case of individuals, general demographic
conditions, such as income, marital status, number of
dependents, or tax return filing status;
``(III) the amount involved; or
``(IV) a generally-available election under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
``(C) A provision shall not be treated as described in
subparagraph (A)(ii) if--
``(i) it provides for the retention of prior law with
respect to all binding contracts or other legally enforceable
obligations in existence on a date contemporaneous with
congressional action specifying such date; or
``(ii) it is a technical correction to previously enacted
legislation that is estimated to have no revenue effect.
``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) all businesses and associations which are related
within the meaning of sections 707(b) and 1563(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as a single
beneficiary;
``(ii) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated
as a single beneficiary;
``(iii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated
as a single beneficiary; and
``(iv) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or
estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of
the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members
of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or
estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such
provision.
``(E) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `revenue-
losing provision' means any provision which results in a
reduction in Federal tax revenues for any one of the two
following periods--
``(i) the first fiscal year for which the provision is
effective; or
``(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the
first fiscal year for which the provision is effective.
``(F) The terms used in this paragraph shall have the same
meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
``(10) OMB.--The term `OMB' means the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.

``IDENTIFICATION OF LIMITED TAX BENEFITS

``Sec. 1027. (a) Statement by Joint Tax Committee.--The
Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution which includes any
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is being
prepared for filing by a committee of conference of the two
Houses, and shall identify whether such bill or joint
resolution contains any limited tax benefits. The Joint
Committee on Taxation shall provide to the committee of
conference a statement identifying any such limited tax
benefits or declaring that the bill or joint resolution does
not contain any limited tax benefits. Any such statement
shall be made available to any Member of Congress by the
Joint Committee on Taxation immediately upon request.
``(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--(1)
Notwithstanding any other rule of the House of
Representatives or any rule or precedent of the Senate, any
revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution which
includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
reported by a committee of conference of the two Houses may
include, as a separate section of such bill or joint
resolution, the information contained in the statement of the
Joint Committee on Taxation, but only in the manner set forth
in paragraph (2).
``(2) The separate section permitted under paragraph (1)
shall read as follows: `Section 1021(a)(3) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
shall ________ apply to ____________.', with the blank spaces
being filled in with --
``(A) in any case in which the Joint Committee on Taxation
identifies limited tax benefits in the statement required
under subsection (a), the word `only' in the first blank
space and a list of all of the specific provisions of the
bill or joint resolution identified by the Joint Committee on
Taxation in such statement in the second blank space; or
``(B) in any case in which the Joint Committee on Taxation
declares that there are no limited tax benefits in the
statement required under subsection (a), the word `not' in
the first blank space and the phrase `any provision of this
Act' in the second blank space.
``(c) President's Authority.--If any revenue or
reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law
pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the
United States--
``(1) with a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in
section 1021(a)(3) only to cancel any limited tax benefit in
that law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
``(2) without a separate section described in subsection
(b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in
section 1021(a)(3) to cancel any limited tax benefit in that
law that meets the definition in section 1026.
``(d) Congressional Identifications of Limited Tax
Benefits.--There shall be no judicial review of the
congressional identification under subsections (a) and (b) of
a limited tax benefit in a conference report.''.

SEC. 203. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Expedited Review.--
(1) Any Member of Congress or any individual adversely
affected by part C of title X of

[[Page H2993]]

the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
may bring an action, in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, for declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief on the ground that any provision of this
part violates the Constitution.
(2) A copy of any complaint in an action brought under
paragraph (1) shall be promptly delivered to the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and
each House of Congress shall have the right to intervene in
such action.
(3) Nothing in this section or in any other law shall
infringe upon the right of the House of Representatives to
intervene in an action brought under paragraph (1) without
the necessity of adopting a resolution to authorize such
intervention.
(b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any order of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia which is issued pursuant
to an action brought under paragraph (1) of subsection (a)
shall be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court
of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a
notice of appeal filed within 10 calendar days after such
order is entered; and the jurisdictional statement shall be
filed within 30 calendar days after such order is entered. No
stay of an order issued pursuant to an action brought under
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be issued by a single
Justice of the Supreme Court.
(c) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of the
District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme
Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to
expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of
any matter brought under subsection (a).

SEC. 204. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Short Titles.--Section 1(a) of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by--
(1) striking ``and'' before ``title X'' and inserting a
period;
(2) inserting ``Parts A and B of'' before ``title X''; and
(3) inserting at the end the following new sentence: ``Part
C of title X may be cited as the `Line Item Veto Act of
1996'.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in
section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Part C--Line Item Veto

``Sec. 1021. Line item veto authority.
``Sec. 1022. Special messages.
``Sec. 1023. Cancellation effective unless disapproved.
``Sec. 1024. Deficit reduction.
``Sec. 1025. Expedited congressional consideration of disapproval
bills.
``Sec. 1026. Definitions.
``Sec. 1027. Identification of limited tax benefits.''.

(c) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Section 904(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``and
1017'' and inserting ``, 1017, 1025, and 1027''.

SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATES.

This Act and the amendments made by it shall take effect
and apply to measures enacted on the earlier of--
(1) the day after the enactment into law, pursuant to
Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United
States, of an Act entitled ``An Act to provide for a seven-
year plan for deficit reduction and achieve a balanced
Federal budget.''; or
(2) January 1, 1997;
and shall have no force or effect on or after January 1,
2005.
TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FAIRNESS

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996''.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) a vibrant and growing small business sector is critical
to creating jobs in a dynamic economy;
(2) small businesses bear a disproportionate share of
regulatory costs and burdens;
(3) fundamental changes that are needed in the regulatory
and enforcement culture of Federal agencies to make agencies
more responsive to small business can be made without
compromising the statutory missions of the agencies;
(4) three of the top recommendations of the 1995 White
House Conference on Small Business involve reforms to the way
government regulations are developed and enforced, and
reductions in government paperwork requirements;
(5) the requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States
Code, have too often been ignored by government agencies,
resulting in greater regulatory burdens on small entities
than necessitated by statute; and
(6) small entities should be given the opportunity to seek
judicial review of agency actions required by chapter 6 of
title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 303. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to implement certain recommendations of the 1995 White
House Conference on Small Business regarding the development
and enforcement of Federal regulations;
(2) to provide for judicial review of chapter 6 of title 5,
United States Code;
(3) to encourage the effective participation of small
businesses in the Federal regulatory process;
(4) to simplify the language of Federal regulations
affecting small businesses;
(5) to develop more accessible sources of information on
regulatory and reporting requirements for small businesses;
(6) to create a more cooperative regulatory environment
among agencies and small businesses that is less punitive and
more solution-oriented; and
(7) to make Federal regulators more accountable for their
enforcement actions by providing small entities with a
meaningful opportunity for redress of excessive enforcement
activities.
Subtitle A--Regulatory Compliance Simplification

SEC. 311. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the terms ``rule'' and ``small entity'' have the same
meanings as in section 601 of title 5, United States Code;
(2) the term ``agency'' has the same meaning as in section
551 of title 5, United States Code; and
(3) the term ``small entity compliance guide'' means a
document designated as such by an agency.

SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE GUIDES.

(a) Compliance Guide.--For each rule or group of related
rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis under section 604 of title 5,
United States Code, the agency shall publish one or more
guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity
compliance guides''. The guides shall explain the actions a
small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or
group of rules. The agency shall, in its sole discretion,
taking into account the subject matter of the rule and the
language of relevant statutes, ensure that the guide is
written using sufficiently plain language likely to be
understood by affected small entities. Agencies may prepare
separate guides covering groups or classes of similarly
affected small entities, and may cooperate with associations
of small entities to develop and distribute such guides.
(b) Comprehensive Source of Information.--Agencies shall
cooperate to make available to small entities through
comprehensive sources of information, the small entity
compliance guides and all other available information on
statutory and regulatory requirements affecting small
entities.
(c) Limitation on Judicial Review.--An agency's small
entity compliance guide shall not be subject to judicial
review, except that in any civil or administrative action
against a small entity for a violation occurring after the
effective date of this section, the content of the small
entity compliance guide may be considered as evidence of the
reasonableness or appropriateness of any proposed fines,
penalties or damages.

SEC. 313. INFORMAL SMALL ENTITY GUIDANCE.

(a) General.--Whenever appropriate in the interest of
administering statutes and regulations within the
jurisdiction of an agency which regulates small entities, it
shall be the practice of the agency to answer inquiries by
small entities concerning information on, and advice about,
compliance with such statutes and regulations, interpreting
and applying the law to specific sets of facts supplied by
the small entity. In any civil or administrative action
against a small entity, guidance given by an agency applying
the law to facts provided by the small entity may be
considered as evidence of the reasonableness or
appropriateness of any proposed fines, penalties or damages
sought against such small entity.
(b) Program.--Each agency regulating the activities of
small entities shall establish a program for responding to
such inquiries no later than 1 year after enactment of this
section, utilizing existing functions and personnel of the
agency to the extent practicable.
(c) Reporting.--Each agency regulating the activities of
small business shall report to the Committee on Small
Business and Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate
and the Committee on Small Business and Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives no later than 2
years after the date of the enactment of this section on the
scope of the agency's program, the number of small entities
using the program, and the achievements of the program to
assist small entity compliance with agency regulations.

SEC. 314. SERVICES OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

(a) Section 21(c)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (P), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (P) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(Q) providing information to small business concerns
regarding compliance with regulatory requirements; and
``(R) developing informational publications, establishing
resource centers of reference materials, and distributing
compliance guides published under section 312(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.''.
(b) Nothing in this Act in any way affects or limits the
ability of other technical assistance or extension programs
to perform or continue to perform services related to
compliance assistance.

[[Page H2994]]

SEC. 315. COOPERATION ON GUIDANCE.

Agencies may, to the extent resources are available and
where appropriate, in cooperation with the states, develop
guides that fully integrate requirements of both Federal and
state regulations where regulations within an agency's area
of interest at the Federal and state levels impact small
entities. Where regulations vary among the states, separate
guides may be created for separate states in cooperation with
State agencies.

SEC. 316. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle
shall take effect on the expiration of 90 days after the date
of enactment of this subtitle.
Subtitle B--Regulatory Enforcement Reforms

SEC. 321. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 322. SMALL BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE ENFORCEMENT
OMBUDSMAN.

The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 30 as section 31; and
(2) by inserting after section 29 the following new
section:

``SEC. 30. OVERSIGHT OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT.

``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
term--
``(1) `Board' means a Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Board established under subsection (c); and
``(2) `Ombudsman' means the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman designated under subsection
(b).
``(b) SBA Enforcement Ombudsman.--
``(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this section, the Administrator shall designate a Small
Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
who shall report directly to the Administrator, utilizing
personnel of the Small Business Administration to the extent
practicable. Other agencies shall assist the Ombudsman and
take actions as necessary to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this section. Nothing in this section is
intended to replace or diminish the activities of any
Ombudsman or similar office in any other agency.
``(2) The Ombudsman shall--
``(A) work with each agency with regulatory authority over
small businesses to ensure that small business concerns that
receive or are subject to an audit, on-site inspection,
compliance assistance effort, or other enforcement related
communication or contact by agency personnel are provided
with a means to comment on the enforcement activity conducted
by such personnel;
``(B) establish means to receive comments from small
business concerns regarding actions by agency employees
conducting compliance or enforcement activities with respect
to the small business concern, means to refer comments to the
Inspector General of the affected agency in the appropriate
circumstances, and otherwise seek to maintain the identity of
the person and small business concern making such comments on
a confidential basis to the same extent as employee
identities are protected under section 7 of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.App.);
``(C) based on substantiated comments received from small
business concerns and the Boards, annually report to Congress
and affected agencies evaluating the enforcement activities
of agency personnel including a rating of the responsiveness
to small business of the various regional and program offices
of each agency;
``(D) coordinate and report annually on the activities,
findings and recommendations of the Boards to the
Administrator and to the heads of affected agencies; and
``(E) provide the affected agency with an opportunity to
comment on draft reports prepared under subparagraph (C), and
include a section of the final report in which the affected
agency may make such comments as are not addressed by the
Ombudsman in revisions to the draft.
``(c) Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards.--
``(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this section, the Administrator shall establish a Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Board in each regional office of
the Small Business Administration.
``(2) Each Board established under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) meet at least annually to advise the Ombudsman on
matters of concern to small businesses relating to the
enforcement activities of agencies;
``(B) report to the Ombudsman on substantiated instances of
excessive enforcement actions of agencies against small
business concerns including any findings or recommendations
of the Board as to agency enforcement policy or practice; and
``(C) prior to publication, provide comment on the annual
report of the Ombudsman prepared under subsection (b).
``(3) Each Board shall consist of five members, who are
owners, operators, or officers of small business concerns,
appointed by the Administrator, after receiving the
recommendations of the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committees on Small Business of the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Not more than three of the
Board members shall be of the same political party. No member
shall be an officer or employee of the Federal Government, in
either the executive branch or the Congress.
``(4) Members of the Board shall serve at the pleasure of
the Administrator for terms of three years or less.
``(5) The Administrator shall select a chair from among the
members of the Board who shall serve at the pleasure of the
Administrator for not more than 1 year as chair.
``(6) A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the conduct of business, but a lesser
number may hold hearings.
``(d) Powers of the Boards.
``(1) The Board may hold such hearings and collect such
information as appropriate for carrying out this section.
``(2) The Board may use the United States mails in the same
manner and under the same conditions as other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government.
``(3) The Board may accept donations of services necessary
to conduct its business, provided that the donations and
their sources are disclosed by the Board.
``(4) Members of the Board shall serve without
compensation, provided that, members of the Board shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.''.

SEC. 323. RIGHTS OF SMALL ENTITIES IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Each agency regulating the activities of
small entities shall establish a policy or program within 1
year of enactment of this section to provide for the
reduction, and under appropriate circumstances for the
waiver, of civil penalties for violations of a statutory or
regulatory requirement by a small entity. Under appropriate
circumstances, an agency may consider ability to pay in
determining penalty assessments on small entities.
(b) Conditions and Exclusions.--Subject to the requirements
or limitations of other statutes, policies or programs
established under this section shall contain conditions or
exclusions which may include, but shall not be limited to--
(1) requiring the small entity to correct the violation
within a reasonable correction period;
(2) limiting the applicability to violations discovered
through participation by the small entity in a compliance
assistance or audit program operated or supported by the
agency or a state;
(3) excluding small entities that have been subject to
multiple enforcement actions by the agency;
(4) excluding violations involving willful or criminal
conduct;
(5) excluding violations that pose serious health, safety
or environmental threats; and
(6) requiring a good faith effort to comply with the law.
(c) Reporting.--Agencies shall report to the Committee on
Small Business and Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business and Committee on
Judiciary of the House of Representatives no later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this section on the
scope of their program or policy, the number of enforcement
actions against small entities that qualified or failed to
qualify for the program or policy, and the total amount of
penalty reductions and waivers.

SEC. 324. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle
shall take effect on the expiration of 90 days after the date
of enactment of this subtitle.
Subtitle C--Equal Access to Justice Act Amendments

SEC. 331. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Section 504(a) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) If, in an adversary adjudication arising from an
agency action to enforce a party's compliance with a
statutory or regulatory requirement, the demand by the agency
is substantially in excess of the decision of the
adjudicative officer and is unreasonable when compared with
such decision, under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the adjudicative officer shall award to the party the fees
and other expenses related to defending against the excessive
demand, unless the party has committed a willful violation of
law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or special circumstances
make an award unjust. Fees and expenses awarded under this
paragraph shall be paid only as a consequence of
appropriations provided in advance.''.
(b) Section 504(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``$75'' and inserting
'`$125'';
(2) at the end of paragraph (1)(B), by inserting before the
semicolon ``or for purposes of subsection (a)(4), a small
entity as defined in section 601'';
(3) at the end of paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``and'';
(4) at the end of paragraph (1)(E), by striking the period
and inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page H2995]]

(5) at the end of paragraph (1), by adding the following
new subparagraph:
``(F) `demand' means the express demand of the agency which
led to the adversary adjudication, but does not include a
recitation by the agency of the maximum statutory penalty (i)
in the administrative complaint, or (ii) elsewhere when
accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount.''.

SEC. 332. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Section 2412(d)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) If, in a civil action brought by the United States,
or a proceeding for judicial review of an adversary
adjudication described in section 504(a)(4) of title 5 the
demand by the United States is substantially in excess of the
judgment finally obtained by the United States and is
unreasonable when compared with such judgment, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the court shall award to
the party the fees and other expenses related to defending
against the excessive demand, unless the party has committed
a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith,
or special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and
expenses awarded under this subparagraph shall be paid only
as a consequence of appropriations provided in advance.''.
(b) Section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``$75'' and inserting
``$125'';
(2) at the end of paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the
semicolon ``or for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(D), a small
entity as defined in section 601 of title 5'';
(3) at the end of paragraph (2)(G), by striking ``and'';
(4) at the end of paragraph (2)(H), by striking the period
and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) at the end of paragraph (2), by adding the following
new subparagraph:
``(I) `demand' means the express demand of the United
States which led to the adversary adjudication, but shall not
include a recitation of the maximum statutory penalty (i) in
the complaint, or (ii) elsewhere when accompanied by an
express demand for a lesser amount.''.

SEC. 333. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by sections 331 and 332 shall apply to
civil actions and adversary adjudications commenced on or
after the date of the enactment of this subtitle.
Subtitle D--Regulatory Flexibility Act Amendments

SEC. 341. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSES.

(a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
(1) Section 603.--Section 603(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting after ``proposed rule'', the phrase ``, or
publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an
interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of
the United States''; and
(B) by inserting at the end of the subsection, the
following new sentence: ``In the case of an interpretative
rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United
States, this chapter applies to interpretative rules
published in the Federal Register for codification in the
Code of Federal Regulations, but only to the extent that such
interpretative rules impose on small entities a collection of
information requirement.''.
(2) Section 601.--Section 601 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(5), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the term `collection of information'--
``(A) means the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or
the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency,
regardless of form or format, calling for either--
``(i) answers to identical questions posed to, or identical
reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, 10 or
more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or
employees of the United States; or
``(ii) answers to questions posed to agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which
are to be used for general statistical purposes; and
``(B) shall not include a collection of information
described under section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States
Code.
``(8) Recordkeeping requirement.--The term `recordkeeping
requirement' means a requirement imposed by an agency on
persons to maintain specified records.
(b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Section 604 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) When an agency promulgates a final rule under section
553 of this title, after being required by that section or
any other law to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking, or promulgates a final interpretative rule
involving the internal revenue laws of the United States as
described in section 603(a), the agency shall prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis. Each final regulatory
flexibility analysis shall contain--
``(1) a succinct statement of the need for, and objectives
of, the rule;
``(2) a summary of the significant issues raised by the
public comments in response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a summary of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
``(3) a description of and an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation
of why no such estimate is available;
``(4) a description of the projected reporting, record
keeping and other compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of small entities which
will be subject to the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record; and
``(5) a description of the steps the agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal
reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives
to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact
on small entities was rejected.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at the time'' and all
that follows and inserting ``such analysis or a summary
thereof.''.

SEC. 342. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 611 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 611. Judicial review

``(a)(1) For any rule subject to this chapter, a small
entity that is adversely affected or aggrieved by final
agency action is entitled to judicial review of agency
compliance with the requirements of sections 601, 604,
605(b), 608(b), and 610 in accordance with chapter 7. Agency
compliance with sections 607 and 609(a) shall be judicially
reviewable in connection with judicial review of section 604.
``(2) Each court having jurisdiction to review such rule
for compliance with section 553, or under any other provision
of law, shall have jurisdiction to review any claims of
noncompliance with sections 601, 604, 605(b), 608(b), and 610
in accordance with chapter 7. Agency compliance with sections
607 and 609(a) shall be judicially reviewable in connection
with judicial review of section 604.
``(3)(A) A small entity may seek such review during the
period beginning on the date of final agency action and
ending one year later, except that where a provision of law
requires that an action challenging a final agency action be
commenced before the expiration of one year, such lesser
period shall apply to an action for judicial review under
this section.
``(B) In the case where an agency delays the issuance of a
final regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section
608(b) of this chapter, an action for judicial review under
this section shall be filed not later than--
``(i) one year after the date the analysis is made
available to the public, or
``(ii) where a provision of law requires that an action
challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the
expiration of the 1-year period, the number of days specified
in such provision of law that is after the date the analysis
is made available to the public.
``(4) In granting any relief in an action under this
section, the court shall order the agency to take corrective
action consistent with this chapter and chapter 7, including,
but not limited to--
``(A) remanding the rule to the agency, and
``(B) deferring the enforcement of the rule against small
entities unless the court finds that continued enforcement of
the rule is in the public interest.
``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
limit the authority of any court to stay the effective date
of any rule or provision thereof under any other provision of
law or to grant any other relief in addition to the
requirements of this section.
``(b) In an action for the judicial review of a rule, the
regulatory flexibility analysis for such rule, including an
analysis prepared or corrected pursuant to paragraph (a)(4),
shall constitute part of the entire record of agency action
in connection with such review.
``(c) Compliance or noncompliance by an agency with the
provisions of this chapter shall be subject to judicial
review only in accordance with this section.
``(d) Nothing in this section bars judicial review of any
other impact statement or similar analysis required by any
other law if judicial review of such statement or analysis is
otherwise permitted by law.''.

SEC. 343. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Sections 603 and 604 of this title shall not apply to
any proposed or final rule if the head of the agency
certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the head of the agency makes a certification
under the preceding sentence, the agency shall publish such
certification in the Federal Register at the time of
publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the
rule or at the time of publication of the final rule, along
with a statement providing the factual basis for such
certification. The agency shall provide such certification
and statement to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.''.
(b) Section 612 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the
Select Committee on Small Business of the Senate, and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives''
and inserting ``the Committees on the Judiciary and Small

[[Page H2996]]

Business of the Senate and House of Representatives''.
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``his views with respect
to the'' and inserting in lieu thereof, ``his or her views
with respect to compliance with this chapter, the adequacy of
the rulemaking record with respect to small entities and
the''.

SEC. 344. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PANELS.

(a) Small Business Outreach and Interagency Coordination.--
Section 609 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
(1) before ``techniques,'' by inserting ``the reasonable
use of'';
(2) in paragraph (4), after ``entities'' by inserting
``including soliciting and receiving comments over computer
networks'';
(3) by designating the current text as subsection (a); and
(4) by adding the following:
``(b) Prior to publication of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis which a covered agency is required to
conduct by this chapter--
``(1) a covered agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and provide the
Chief Counsel with information on the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and the type of small
entities that might be affected;
``(2) not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of
the materials described in paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel
shall identify individuals representative of affected small
entities for the purpose of obtaining advice and
recommendations from those individuals about the potential
impacts of the proposed rule;
``(3) the agency shall convene a review panel for such rule
consisting wholly of full time Federal employees of the
office within the agency responsible for carrying out the
proposed rule, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Chief Counsel;
``(4) the panel shall review any material the agency has
prepared in connection with this chapter, including any draft
proposed rule, collect advice and recommendations of each
individual small entity representative identified by the
agency after consultation with the Chief Counsel, on issues
related to subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5)
and 603(c);
``(5) not later than 60 days after the date a covered
agency convenes a review panel pursuant to paragraph (3), the
review panel shall report on the comments of the small entity
representatives and its findings as to issues related to
subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) and 603(c),
provided that such report shall be made public as part of the
rulemaking record; and
``(6) where appropriate, the agency shall modify the
proposed rule, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis or
the decision on whether an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
``(c) An agency may in its discretion apply subsection (b)
to rules that the agency intends to certify under subsection
605(b), but the agency believes may have a greater than de
minimis impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``(d) For purposed of this section, the term covered agency
means the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor.
``(e) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy, in consultation with
the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2), and with the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, may waive
the requirements of subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) by
including in the rulemaking record a written finding, with
reasons therefor, that those requirements would not advance
the effective participation of small entities in the
rulemaking process. For purposes of this subsection, the
factors to be considered in making such a finding are as
follows:
``(1) In developing a proposed rule, the extent to which
the covered agency consulted with individuals representative
of affected small entities with respect to the potential
impacts of the rule and took such concerns into
consideration.
``(2) Special circumstances requiring prompt issuance of
the rule.
``(3) Whether the requirements of subsection (b) would
provide the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2) with
a competitive advantage relative to other small entities.''.
(b) Small Business Advocacy Chairpersons.--Not later than
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of
each covered agency that has conducted a final regulatory
flexibility analysis shall designate a small business
advocacy chairperson using existing personnel to the extent
possible, to be responsible for implementing this section and
to act as permanent chair of the agency's review panels
established pursuant to this section.

SEC. 345. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle shall become effective on the expiration of
90 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, except
that such amendments shall not apply to interpretative rules
for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was published prior
to the date of enactment.
Subtitle E--Congressional Review

SEC. 351. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING.

Title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
immediately after chapter 7 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING

``Sec.
``801. Congressional review.
``802. Congressional disapproval procedure.
``803. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial deadlines.
``804. Definitions.
``805. Judicial review.
``806. Applicability; severability.
``807. Exemption for monetary policy.
``808. Effective date of certain rules.

``Sec. 801. Congressional review

``(a)(1)(A) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal
agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report
containing--
``(i) a copy of the rule;
``(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule,
including whether it is a major rule; and
``(iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.
``(B) On the date of the submission of the report under
subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule
shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to
each House of Congress--
``(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the
rule, if any;
``(ii) the agency's actions relevant to sections 603, 604,
605, 607, and 609;
``(iii) the agency's actions relevant to sections 202, 203,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
``(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under
any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders.
``(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph
(A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of each standing committee with
jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives
or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law
under which the rule is issued.
``(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on
each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction in each
House of the Congress by the end of 15 calendar days after
the submission or publication date as provided in section
802(b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall
include an assessment of the agency's compliance with
procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller
General's report under subparagraph (A).
``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall take effect on the latest of--
``(A) the later of the date occurring 60 days after the
date on which--
``(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under
paragraph (1); or
``(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so
published;
``(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of
disapproval described in section 802 relating to the rule,
and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the
earlier date--
``(i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to
override the veto of the President; or
``(ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which
the Congress received the veto and objections of the
President; or
``(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect,
if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of
disapproval under section 802 is enacted).
``(4) Except for a major rule, a rule shall take effect as
otherwise provided by law after submission to Congress under
paragraph (1).
``(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the effective date of
a rule shall not be delayed by operation of this chapter
beyond the date on which either House of Congress votes to
reject a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802.
``(b)(1) A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the
Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described
under section 802, of the rule.
``(2) A rule that does not take effect (or does not
continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in
substantially the same form, and a new rule that is
substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued,
unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by
a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution
disapproving the original rule.
``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would
not take effect by reason of subsection (a)(3) may take
effect, if the President makes a determination under
paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such
determination to the Congress.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the
President by Executive Order that the rule should take effect
because such rule is--
``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
``(C) necessary for national security; or
``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under
this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under
section 802 or the effect of a joint resolution of
disapproval under this section.

[[Page H2997]]

``(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review
otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any
rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date
occurring--
``(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or
``(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60
legislative days,

before the date the Congress adjourns a session of Congress
through the date on which the same or succeeding Congress
first convenes its next session, section 802 shall apply to
such rule in the succeeding session of Congress.
``(2)(A) In applying section 802 for purposes of such
additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall
be treated as though--
``(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as
a rule that shall take effect) on--
``(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or
``(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the
15th legislative day,

after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
``(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress
under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report
shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
``(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take
effect as otherwise provided by law (including other
subsections of this section).
``(e)(1) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall
also apply to any major rule promulgated between March 1,
1996, and the date of the enactment of this chapter.
``(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional
review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated
as though--
``(A) such rule were published in the Federal Register on
the date of enactment of this chapter; and
``(B) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress
under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
``(3) The effectiveness of a rule described under paragraph
(1) shall be as otherwise provided by law, unless the rule is
made of no force or effect under section 802.
``(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no
force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution under
section 802 shall be treated as though such rule had never
taken effect.
``(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of
disapproval under section 802 respecting a rule, no court or
agency may infer any intent of the Congress from any action
or inaction of the Congress with regard to such rule, related
statute, or joint resolution of disapproval.

``Sec. 802. Congressional disapproval procedure

``(a) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the
period beginning on the date on which the report referred to
in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60
days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is
adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress),
the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
`That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the ____
relating to ____, and such rule shall have no force or
effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
``(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress
with jurisdiction.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `submission or
publication date' means the later of the date on which--
``(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under
section 801(a)(1); or
``(B) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so
published.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred
a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not
reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint
resolution) at the end of 20 calendar days after the
submission or publication date defined under subsection
(b)(2), such committee may be discharged from further
consideration of such joint resolution upon a petition
supported in writing by 30 Members of the Senate, and such
joint resolution shall be placed on the calendar.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is
discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration
of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at
any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion
to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all
points of order against the joint resolution (and against
consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion
is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or
to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other
business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint
resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain
the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion further to limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection
(c) or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint
resolution respecting a rule--
``(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning
with the applicable submission or publication date, or
``(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was
submitted during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1),
after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the
15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress
first convenes.
``(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint
resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that
House receives from the other House a joint resolution
described in subsection (a), then the following procedures
shall apply:
``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee.
``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in
subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if
no joint resolution had been received from the other House;
but
``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.
``(g) This section is enacted by Congress--
``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but
applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the
extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
``(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.

``Sec. 803. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and
judicial deadlines

``(a) In the case of any deadline for, relating to, or
involving any rule which does not take effect (or the
effectiveness of which is terminated) because of enactment of
a joint resolution under section 802, that deadline is
extended until the date 1 year after the date of enactment of
the joint resolution. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect a deadline merely by reason of the
postponement of a rule's effective date under section 801(a).
``(b) The term `deadline' means any date certain for
fulfilling any obligation or exercising any authority
established by or under any Federal statute or regulation, or
by or under any court order implementing any Federal statute
or regulation.

``Sec. 804. Definitions

``For purposes of this chapter--
``(1) The term `Federal agency' means any agency as that
term is defined in section 551(1).
``(2) The term ``major rule'' means any rule that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has
resulted in or is likely to result in--
``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

The term does not include any rule promulgated under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the amendments made by
that Act.
``(3) The term `rule' has the meaning given such term in
section 551, except that such term does not include--
``(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a
rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages,
prices, services, or allowances therefor, corporate or
financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or
acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures
bearing on any of the foregoing;
``(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel;
or
``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.

[[Page H2998]]

``Sec. 805. Judicial review

``No determination, finding, action, or omission under this
chapter shall be subject to judicial review.

``Sec. 806. Applicability; severability

``(a) This chapter shall apply notwithstanding any other
provision of law.
``(b) If any provision of this chapter or the application
of any provision of this chapter to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances, and the
remainder of this chapter, shall not be affected thereby.

``Sec. 807. Exemption for monetary policy

``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.

``Sec. 808. Effective date of certain rules

``Notwithstanding section 801--
``(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes,
or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial,
recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting,
fishing, or camping, or
``(2) any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and
incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest,

shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.''.

SEC. 352. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 351 shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 353. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

The table of chapters for part I of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting immediately after the item
relating to chapter 7 the following:

``8. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking...................801''.
TITLE IV--PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

SEC. 401. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained
in such subsection and inserting ``$5,500,000,000,000''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 391, as
amended, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for
30 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized
for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Slaughter], the designee of the ranking minority member, will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

general leave

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 3136.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3136, the
Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996. This legislation
contains the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, the Line-Item-Veto
Act, the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and provides
for a permanent increase in the public debt limit.
Let me first compliment Chairmen Solomon, Clinger, and Bunning, and
the rest of the line-item-veto conferees for their hard work. As the
original author of line-item-veto legislation at the request of
President Reagan, I am a true believer in the line-item veto. I know
that it will help control spending and therefore aid us in obtaining a
balanced budget. Accordingly, I welcome its inclusion in H.R. 3136.
I am also proud that the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act will be
included in this legislation. It is another of my career-long
projects--one which I began working on with former Senator Goldwater in
the early 1970's. As you know the House has already approved this
measure by a large bipartisan vote of 411 to 4 last December 5. It
would raise the earnings limit for seniors between the ages of 65 and
69 to $30,000 by the year 2002, while fully preserving the long-term
financial integrity of the Social Security trust funds. In fact,
according to the Social Security actuaries, this bill improves the
long-range solvency of the trust funds by a significant amount.
This legislation is also strongly supported by a broad group of
seniors' associations, including the AARP.
We all know that the current earnings limit is too low and is nothing
more than a tax on hard-working seniors.
In our Contract With America, we promised to raise the earnings limit
which discourages older workers from remaining in the work force and
sharing their experience, knowledge, and skills with younger workers.
Today, we take another important step in fulfilling that promise by
providing relief from the onerous earnings limit to almost 1 million
senior citizens who want or need to work. Again, I want to compliment
Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim Bunning and Whip Denny
Hastert for their outstanding efforts on this legislation. They have
been untiring in their work on this project.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3136 also includes another important element of our
Contract With America, regulatory relief for small business. This is a
vital element of the bill, and I believe Chairman Hyde will be speaking
on it in more detail.
Finally, H.R. 3136 contains an increase in the permanent statutory
debt ceiling from its current level of $4.9 trillion to $5.5 trillion.
This amount should provide the Government with enough authority to
operate through fiscal year 1997. This is the level including in the
Balanced Budget Act, and sought by the Treasury Department. We have
receive correspondence from Treasury expressing their support for the
provision.
This is a straightforward debt limit extension. As you know, we need
to pass this legislation quickly as the current temporary limit expires
tomorrow.
Section 107 of this legislation codifies Congress' understanding that
the Secretary of Treasury and other Federal officials are not
authorized to use Social Security and Medicare funds for debt
management purposes under any circumstances. Specifically, the
Secretary of the Treasury and other Federal officials are required not
to delay or otherwise underinvest incoming receipts to the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds. They are also required not to sell,
redeem or otherwise disinvest securities, obligations or other assets
of these trust funds except when necessary to provide for the payment
of benefits and administrative expenses of these programs. The
legislation applies to the following trust funds: Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance [OASI] Trust Fund; Federal Hospital Insurance [HI]
Trust Fund; and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance [SMI] Trust
Fund.
Since late October, the total amount of public debt obligations has
been very close to the public debt limit. This has given rise to
concerns that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds might be
underinvested or disinvested for debt management purposes. While the
administration has stated that it would not take such action, it is
desirable to make clear in law that these funds could not be used for
debt management purposes. It is the purpose of this legislation to
clarify that any limitation on the public debt shall not be used as an
excuse to avoid the full and timely investment of the Social Security
trust funds. The Secretary, by law, is the managing trustee of these
trust funds, and also the chief financial officer of the U.S.
Government charged with its day-to-day cash management. As such, he
shall take all necessary steps to ensure the full and timely investment
of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
This bill seeks to assure that the Secretary of the Treasury and
other Federal officials shall invest and disinvest Social Security and
Medicare trust funds solely for the purposes of accounting for the
income and disbursements of these programs. There are no circumstances
envisioned under which the investments of the trust funds will not be
made in a timely fashion in accordance with the normal investment
practices of the Treasury, or under which the trust funds are drawn
down prematurely for the purpose of avoiding limitations on the public
debt or to make room under the statutory debt limit for the Secretary
of the Treasury to issue new debt obligations in order to cover the
expenditures of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill, which advances many important
elements of our Contract With America, keeping our promises to the
American

[[Page H2999]]

people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it
today.

{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].

personal explanation

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was in my district yesterday on official
business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the rule and
``no'' on passage of H.R. 1833, the partial birth abortion bill;
``yes'' on the passage of House Resolution 379; and ``yes'' on the
passage of House Concurrent Resolution 102.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Jacobs].
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, this is a paradox day in the U.S. House of
Representatives. We are going to raise the earnings limit under Social
Security immediately from about $11,000 a year to $14,000 or so a year,
I believe, and that will, on average, mean an income of about $20,000
for a Social Security retiree. That is a very good thing to do.
The paradox is, at the same time we are not going to be doing
anything about the minimum wage. So what are we saying in essence? We
are saying that the person who is retired and might work part time
needs $24,000 a year, but the young person who is working every day of
the week and working hard, maybe digging ditches, and has children to
support can get by just fine on $8,840 a year. So I want to
congratulate my colleagues on a sense of humor, I suppose, and a
wonderful paradox.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
(Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3136.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support increasing the Social Security
earnings limit. The current earnings limit of $11,280 hurts low-to-
moderate-income seniors who work out of necessity, not choice.
Our Nation achieved unprecedented wealth and power because of the
strong work ethic, self-reliance, and personal responsibility of
today's senior citizens. They are the generation that built this
Nation. To punish these productive, industrious seniors, who are the
ones that made America great is absolutely absurd. All Americans lose
when the earnings limit prevents us from employing the teaching and
experience of our Nation's most precious resource.
Let me also say I support wholeheartedly empowering small businesses
to challenge burdensome regulations. In fact, observation of the
catastrophic effects extraneous regulations have on small businesses
and property owners was a major motivation for my seeking office.
We should pass legislation to increase the Social Security earnings
limit, and to empower small business, and I hope we do it soon.
However, I must vote against this measure today because I simply
cannot support what would be a monumental mistake that would be made by
this Congress if we hand over legislative powers to the president in
the form of a line-item veto.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I believe that a line item veto
could be effective in eliminating wasteful port. However, I strongly
believe that the consequences of shifting the delicate power balance of
between the executive and legislative branches of government would far
outweigh any advantages gained by this measure.
Let me remind you of Alexander Hamilton's stern warning in Federalist
No. 76 of why we must keep the powers given respectively to the
legislature and executive branches of government separate:

Without the one or the other the former would be unable to
defend himself against the depredations of that latter. (The
Legislature) might gradually be stripped of his authorities
by successive resolutions. . .
And in one mode or the other, the legislative and executive
powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution specifically gives the power of the
purse to the people, which are represented in the Congress. Let us not
give that sacred responsibility away to the President because we as a
Congress do not have the discipline to make necessary spending cuts.
The more powers we give to the executive to control the spending of
taxpayer dollars, the less we will have of a representative government
our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the Congress will regret the day
that we surrender this tremendous power to the executive. I urge my
colleagues to stand back and take a hard look at what we are doing
today, and whether it is really worth giving away power that rightfully
belongs to this, the people's House.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the highly respected chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3136, and
particularly title III of that bill, the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Title III, as amended by the rule, is patterned after the provisions
of S. 942, legislation sponsored by Senator Christopher Bond of
Missouri, which passed the Senate on March 19 by the vote of 100 to 0.
It would provide important regulatory relief for America's small
businesses.
This measure is vitally important to the small business community,
which is particularly burdened by the effect of multiple, and many
times conflicting, regulatory requirements. It should be viewed not as
a total solution to all regulatory problems, but as a good first step
of making rules more fair, more rational, and more carefully tailored
to achieve the goal they are designed to accomplish.

First, title III proposes important changes in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, allowing judicial review of certain aspects of that
statute. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980.
Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special
needs and concerns of small entities--that is, small businesses, local
governments, farmers, and so forth, whenever they engage in a
rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The agencies
must then prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the
impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the
agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
From the beginning, the problem with this law has been the lack of
availability of a judicial reviews mechanism to enforce the purposes of
the law. Right now, if agencies do not actually conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in
the act, there is no sanction. Thus, under current law, the small
business community has no remedy.
Title III would cure this problem. In instances where an agency
should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not,
or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a
flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized
to seek judicial review within 1 year after final agency action. A
court will then review the agency's action under the judicial review
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The remedies that a
court may order include remanding the rule back to the agency and
deferring enforcement of the rule against small entities, pending
agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Another important aspect of title III is the congressional review
procedure. This will allow Congress to review all proposed rules to
determine whether or not they should take effect. Specifically, title
III would allow Congress to postpone for 60 days the implementation of
any major rule, generally defined as having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. The language allows the President to
bypass the 60-day delay through the issuance of an Executive order, if
the rule addresses an imminent threat to the public health or safety,
or other emergency, or matters involving criminal law enforcement or
national security.
This legislation was developed by Senator Don Nickles and Senator
Harry Reid. My Judiciary Committee staff has worked very closely with
Senator Nickles' staff concerning the details of this provision.
I think it is important to emphasize that this approach means that
Congress must be prepared to take on greater responsibility in the
rulemaking process. If during the review period, Congress identifies
problems in a proposed major rule prior to its promulgation, we must be
prepared to take action. Each standing committee will have to carefully
monitor the regulatory activities of those agencies falling within
their jurisdiction.
Title III also includes a provision which will require Federal
agencies to simplify forms and publish a plain English guide to help
small businesses comply with Federal regulations. These compliance
guides will not be subject to judicial review, but may be considered as
evidence of the reasonableness of any proposed fines or penalties.
Federal agencies would

[[Page H3000]]

also be directed to reduce or waive fines for small businesses in
appropriate circumstances, if violations are corrected within a certain
period.

The proposal would also create an ombudsman within the Small Business
Administration to gather information from small businesses about
compliance and enforcement practices, and to work with the various
agencies so as to respond to the concerns of small businesses regarding
those practices.
In addition, some important changes would be made in the Equal Access
to Justice Act. The Equal Access to Justice Act [EAJA] currently
provides that certain parties who prevail over the Federal Government
in regulatory or court proceedings are entitled to an award in
attorneys' fees and other expenses, unless the Government can
demonstrate that its position was substantially justified or that
special circumstances would make the award unjust. Eligible parties are
individuals whose net worth does not exceed $2 million or businesses,
organizations, associations, or units of local government with a net
worth of no more than $7 million and no more than 500 employees. The
act covers both adversary administrative proceedings and civil court
actions.
Title III proposes to change the Equal Access to Justice Act so as to
make it easier for small businesses to recover their attorneys fees, if
they have been subjected to excessive and unsustainable proposed
penalties. It would amend the EAJA to create a new avenue for small
entities to recover their attorneys fees in situations where the
Government has instituted an administrative or civil action against a
small entity to enforce a statutory or regulatory requirement. In these
situations, the test for recovering attorneys' fees would become
whether the final demand of the United States, prior to the initiation
of the adjudication or civil action, was substantially in excess of the
decision or judgment ultimately obtained and is unreasonable when
compared to such decision or judgment. The important point here is that
this legislation will level the playing field and make it far more
likely that the United States will not seek excessive fines or
penalties from small businesses and will be more likely to make fair
settlement offers prior to proceeding with a formal regulatory
enforcement action or before going to court to collect the civil fine
or penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I have only described in very general terms today the
substance of this important title. Because the language is the product
of negotiation and compromise with the Senate, there is no formal
legislative history available to explain its terms. To cure this
deficiency, I will be inserting in the Congressional Record at a later
date a document which will serve as the equivalent of a statement of
managers. The same document will be submitted to the Record in the
Senate. It is the committee's intent that that document carry the
weight of legislative history regarding title III of H.R. 3136.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents an important and significant
step toward removing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulations from
the backs of small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
3136 and look forward to its prompt passage and it being signed into
law.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against H.R. 3136. My
opposition stems not from a desire to prevent the needed increase in
the debt limit, nor do I oppose the increase in the Social Security
earnings limit contained in section 4, a proposition I supported with
my vote in favor of H.R. 2684 last December.
Rather, my objection, Mr. Speaker, is to the measure before us, which
rests on my adamant opposition to the line-item veto provisions of
section 3. The line-item veto is not about money as such. It is about
power, specifically the balance of power between the executive and
legislative branches of the Federal Government. This has nothing to do
with Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with the contract
except the contract we should be keeping with history that provided for
our constitutional democracy to be able to sustain a balance between
the executive and the legislative. It assumes that the executive
branch, compared to the legislature, is inherently inclined to restrain
spending. In fact, however, congressional appropriations have been
lower than the amounts requested by the past three Presidents, Democrat
and Republican alike. In denying Congress the authority to single out
proposed rescissions for individual consideration, H.R. 3136 denies to
the Congress an authority it grants to the President.
If the President can unilaterally veto individual items in a single
bill, why is Congress required to sustain or override those vetoes as
an indivisible package? Why is Congress denied the authority, why are
we denying ourselves the authority to judge each veto cast by the
President? The upshot is more power for the executive branch, less for
the legislature. By giving the President power to veto specific tax and
appropriation items within a single bill, H.R. 3136 deprives the
legislative branch of its share of its ability to strike a compromise
with the executive.
Mr. Speaker, it upsets the carefully calibrated balance between the
legislative and executive branches of Government. That balance is what
inclines our political system to compromise. Look at what is happening
in the rest of the world where the executive has exclusive authority. I
know I am going to be among the few votes that is going to be cast
today. What I regret is, and this has happened before in our
legislative history, there will be a few who will try to strike a
balance to keep the power of the legislature against the executive, and
one day there will be a Ph.D. writing a thesis about it, how we gave up
our power, how we gave up the balance of power that exists in our
democracy. Vote ``no'' on 3136.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time around will be the charm and
the Social Security earnings limit will be passed. I want to thank
Dennis Hastert, the deputy whip, and all the Republican Members of the
100th Congress class, because this has been a class project for over 8
years.
Mr. Speaker, the House has twice passed legislation to increase this
onerous earnings limit in the 104th Congress, but lack of Senate action
has kept this measure off the President's desk.
I have a very good feeling that the tide has turned and our
colleagues in the other body want to see this done as much as we do.
I want to commend the House and Senate leadership for working with
the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee to make the
earnings limit increase part of the debt limit legislation.
We have worked out a fair bill which makes good policy while actually
improving the financial integrity of the Social Security trust funds.
By increasing the earnings limit on working senior citizens, we are
fulfilling the commitment we made in the Contract With America to bring
economic relief to older workers.
The earnings limit is a depression-era relic that has outlived its
usefulness. Older workers have a great deal of knowledge and experience
and our country needs the skills of experienced workers. The current
limit is unrealistically low and sends the message that the Federal
Government does not want seniors to continue working and contributing.
Today's older Americans are living longer and healthier. They want to
continue contributing to society, but they have to ask themselves if it
is worth losing a good part of their Social Security benefits to do so.
In most cases, the answer is ``No.'' By discouraging skilled older
workers from working, we are forgoing one of society's greatest
resources--experienced workers--a commodity every employer in the
United States needs and values.
The earnings limit is particularly harsh on lower to middle-income
seniors who must work to supplement their Social Security benefits.
Approximately 1 million working seniors have some or all of their
benefits withheld because of the current earnings limit. These are not
wealthy working seniors.
These are seniors who do not have substantial pensions, investments
or savings to supplement their Social Security checks.
The earnings limit is nothing less than a tax on work. Seniors need
and deserve some tax relief. I urge my colleagues to join me in making
this long

[[Page H3001]]

overdue change to increase the earnings limit to $30,000.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the rule on this particular
bill, not because I oppose the provisions of the bill in general but in
specific, I have a problem with one provision on line-item veto.

{time} 1245

I am a long-time supporter of the line-item veto. That is an issue
which has not been partisan. It is an issue that the administration has
asked for. I have supported it, and many on both sides of the aisle
have supported it. The concern I have is that the line-item veto, under
this bill, will not go into effect when we pass the bill. It will not
go into effect until the end of the current term of this President.
This President is a Democrat. This Congress is controlled by
Republicans. That looks to the public like business as usual, like the
Republicans are afraid to give a Democratic President the authority to
veto specific items of pork.
It is not like we do not have a problem ongoing with park-barrel
spending. I have in my hand the Citizens Against Government Waste's
1996 Congressional Pig Book. In that they identify $12.5 billion in
just 8 appropriation bills that we passed in 1996, 8 of the 13, $12.5
billion of pork.
We passed in February 1995 through this House and in March through
the other body a line-item veto bill. It took 6 months to even appoint
conferees. Now we finally have the line-item veto coming to passage as
part of this bill. It is too late for 1996 and these billions of
dollars. Under this bill, it is too late for 1997 as well.
Did they believe that, by passing line-item veto, there would only be
Republican Presidents in the future? A Democratic President would not
be eligible to use the line-item veto? Well, I am going to put into the
record statements by the majority leader of the House, majority leader
in the Senate and majority whip in the Senate. I am also going to put
into the Record statements by the Committee on Rules chairman and other
people on the floor of this House, saying we are not afraid to give it
to a Democrat President. Here we are giving it, it is not just a
Republican, we are giving it to him. No, you are not, not unless he
wins reelection.
So I simply believe that we ought to change one provision in this
bill. Let us make line-item veto effective immediately upon enactment.
If the President does not appropriately use it, then Congress can
challenge the President. If the President does appropriately use it, we
start cutting inappropriate spending today rather than waiting until
after the 1997 fiscal year.
So I would urge my colleagues to revise this bill, and I hope that we
will have a motion to recommit with instructions to do so.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
As chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I am
very pleased to rise in strong support of this measure. Two of the
provisions in this measure were initiated in the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee, and we are very proud they are part of this debt
ceiling increase, because the line-item veto goes directly to the
question of trying to hold down the debt, which we are now going to be
forced to increase today.
The previous speaker said that this was a provision that we should
give the President right now. I would point out to the gentleman that
this was a suggestion that the President himself made. Contrary to many
of the Members on the other side of the aisle, this President, our
President, supports the line-item veto and supports the date that has
been selected.
I would also point out he does have within his own power the key to
unlock this provision and make it effective today, and that would be if
he would agree to a balanced budget agreement. That is, as I say, in
his power.
We had a lot of trouble reconciling the many differences, frankly,
that existed between the Senate and the House. Many in this room will
remember how vast those differences were. But we were able, in the
final analysis, to come to agreement. It was a bipartisan bicameral
agreement. There are Members on both sides who support strongly the
provision of the line-item veto. There are Members on both sides,
frankly, who disagree with the line-item veto.
The intent of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the
President a tool, only a tool, to approach this question of deficit
reduction. We have provided it not just for the appropriations process,
which would only get at about 30 percent of the spending, we have also
provided it for entitlements. We have provided it for targeted tax
preferences which have been so abused in the past. The President is
going to have a broad authority and broad ability to deal with the
deficit and to deal with the debt, which has been spiraling out of
control.
I would point out it is important to note, consistent with the demand
of both Houses in the conference, the conference report does not allow
the President to strike any restriction, condition, or limitation on
how funds may be spent. It is limited to whole dollar amounts. No
policy can be changed as a result of this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend who just
mentioned that it was the President who asked for this, yes, the
President asked for line-item veto. The President did not ask for line-
item veto to be until after the new year of 1997. It was offered by the
majority leader, Senator Dole, to be available then, and the President
said he wanted line-item veto, he would be willing to accept it and
would accept it under those terms.
It was not the President suggesting to delay line-item veto until
1997. The President did accept it, but he has asked for it consistently
to be effective immediately, and I have a letter so stating.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the Chair what I am about to do. I am
going to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly],
then I am going to get out of the way and let the gentlewoman from New
York use her 10 minutes.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand here today, on
March 28, 1996, because it is a good day for the United States of
America, it is a good day for the economic security of the United
States of America, it is a good day for the financial markets of the
United States of America, but most importantly it is a good day for the
full faith and credit of the United States.
We are raising the debt limit. We should have done it 5 months ago,
but we are doing it today, and I am pleased that that is happening.
There are those who say it did not matter if we did not raise it when
we should have 5 months ago. I have to differ because I do not think
there is any way of knowing if there were not interest rate increases
or delaying schedules of auctions for securities, or, in fact, holding
those actions for securities, or, in fact, holding those auctions when
they should have.
Having said that, I am glad today has come. There is one
disappointment I have, though, in this bill. For 19 years, for 19
years, the blind of this country have been joined with the elderly of
this country, in being able to earn a certain amount of money over and
above the Social Security earnings test. For some reason, the majority
has decided to drop the blind from this joint relationship with those
over 65. I do think it is too bad, because it really hurts the economic
independence of the blind in this country.
I certainly hope the majority in another time will look at this piece
of legislation. I know the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] introduced
it originally. I do hope once again we can couple the blind with those
over 65 so economic independence can be theirs also.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a good day but it certainly is a strange
one. I would never have thought I would be

[[Page H3002]]

part of a Congress of the United States that would unilaterally hand
over major parts of its power to the executive department. To me, the
strength of the Government of the United States, as written by the
Founding Fathers, was the separation of powers, for each part of the
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, well defined.
With the action taken here in the House and in the Senate, we are
unilaterally handing over to the President, whomever he or she may be,
the right to veto all the work that we do here in Congress. Members of
the House who have served under Governors, who have the right of line-
item veto, have told me that in many cases it is a genteel way to
commit blackmail.
Will we save money with the line-item veto? Well, consider this
scenario: Let us say there is a President who is finding it very
difficult, perhaps, to get reelected, and to get support from the
members of his party who serve in the House or in the Senate. He would
call in a delegation, perhaps mine, New York, which is rather large,
and says to us, you are not supporting me, but I do notice here that in
the bills that have been sent to me, that there is a very critical item
under New York that has so much money. We are then, Members, confronted
with either determining whether we are going to stand pat, face the
President of the United States and tell him to forget about it, or
allow him simply to line out what is necessary for the people that we
represent.
It is possible, is it not, that under those circumstances, that a
delegation, a legislator, anyone, a leader would decide not to spend
less money, Mr. Speaker, but could be induced to spend more? Indeed, it
may be that such a President wants more than that has been asked for;
the line-item veto does not say that in all cases that they will be
going for less; it is entirely possible that a President will ask for
more.
I believe that this measure is unconstitutional, and I hope that it
will be judged so. It is a tragedy to me that this has been added on to
what is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have
to come before us. The threat of fiscal default hanging over the United
States of America has left a cloud over us that should never have been
there in the first place. No nation ever talked about defaulting by
choice until this time. To put, again, a sort of genteel from of
blackmail, things that we normally would like to debate, strikes me as
not the best way to do business.

We have heard this conference report being bipartisan and the great
support that you have had on both sides of the aisle. I think it is
important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the conference that took
place, took place only between House and Senate Republicans. No
Democrats in the House or Senate were a part of that conference, and
indeed the Democrats only saw the conference report after it was filed.
Without any question, this side of the House had no impact whatever on
that conference report.
But in addition, this conference report goes much further than either
the House bill or the Contract With America went. For example, it
includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all other entitlement
programs. We are now going to say to the President, ``If you do not
like the increases that we have given in Social Security, get rid of
them.'' We have put Medicare and Medicaid again up to the vagaries of
the President without the ability of the people here to make the
determination for the people who sent us, the 500,000 and more in each
district who depend upon us to make those decisions, now you want to
turn these decision over to the President.
But there is one other piece that I was particularly involved in
myself during the 100 days of the Contract With America when line-item
veto was brought up. We were concerned over on our side about the fact
that in many cases it is just as serious a drain on the Federal
Treasury, in many cases, just as much a breach of faith, to use tax
policy. And we put forth an amendment on this side to make sure that
tax policy, giving benefits to certain groups, certain persons in the
United States, would be looked at and scrutinized if the line-item veto
indeed became law. That has been narrowed to the point of
nonrecognition. Your tax-break friends are safe.
What we are saying with this bill, this line-item veto today, is that
the President may run through the bills in any way he or she likes,
taking out anything or everything no matter the importance of it or
what it may mean for the country. However, when it comes to tax
benefits and tax policy, given to favorite constituents or constituent
groups, nobody is going to be touching that. That is going to be
sacred.

Obviously, this bill is important for us to pass. Our fiscal
responsibility and our fiscal reputation depend on it, and it is high
time that the Social Security recipients receive some attention with
the fact that they have been limited in the income that they can
receive. Without jeopardizing their Social Security.
But, Mr. Speaker, adding line-item veto to this is an abrogation of
our power. It is an abrogation of the Constitution of the United
States, and, frankly, I think that putting it on this bill says to the
Nation basically we cannot be trusted. It is going to have to be
somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to make these final decisions.
That is a decision and a statement that I personally am not willing to
make.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
I would just like to briefly carry on the discussion of how much
power has been transferred from Congress to the President. Article I,
section 9 of the Constitution says that Congress shall control the
purse strings. Article 1 of section VII of the Constitution says that
Congress shall decide how deep we go into debt.
I bring this chart to portray the authority and responsibility that
Congress has now given away to the President of the United States. This
pie chart represents the Federal budget for this coming year. The blue
area represents the 52 percent of spending now in these welfare
entitlement programs. The spending in those programs cannot be changed
without the consent of the President.

{time} 1300

It has been demonstrated now that also the administration has the
authority to go deeper in debt without the consent of Congress.
Transferring even greater power to the administrative branch, to the
President, by saying that he will have the authority to line out, to
veto anything in an appropriation bill, is a tremendous transfer of
power.
I served under three governors while in the State legislature in
Michigan. Every one of those governors, liberal and conservative, used
the leverage of the line-item veto to get spending they wanted. A lot
of States have the line-item veto. Almost every one of those States
also have a constitutional provision that says they have to have a
balanced budget.
In the State legislature, while the Governor says ``I want to shift
priorities to what I think is important spending,'' either for
political purposes or for philosophic goals. In the U.S. Government,
where we do not have that kind of safeguard of a balanced budget, there
is a danger of actually increasing spending and not decreasing spending
as some presume.
During the last three decades, a lot of us wished that the President
had authority to veto spending we did not like. But we now have a
Congress that is becoming more frugal, is being more conscientious of a
balanced budget, and is more interested in cutting. Now we are saying
we are going to take away responsibility from this Chamber, from this
body and give it to the President. This is inconsistent with what our
Founding Fathers thought was an appropriate balance. I think this
legislation could have different results than some expect. I hope we do
not see the dangers that could result from further disrupting the
balance of power.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Wisconsin is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I support the line-item veto. It is a good measure, a
measure

[[Page H3003]]

that the American people want. Why? They want the line-item veto
because they are concerned about two things. They are concerned about
pork barrel spending, and they are concerned about special interest tax
breaks.
This bill does a good job of taking care of the pork barrel spending,
but it does a lousy job of taking care of special interest tax breaks.
Why is that? It is because the people on the Republican side of the
aisle like special interest tax breaks.
We hear on the floor day after day proponents of tax reform from the
Republican side say, ``Let's have a flat tax. Let's get rid of all
these deductions. Let's get rid of all these loopholes.''
Well, this was the opportunity to get rid of those. This bill was the
opportunity to say we do not believe in special interest tax loopholes.
But when they came up to bat, they swung and missed. They had no
desire to give the President of the United States the ability to get
rid of special interest tax loopholes. Why not? Because they are the
gift that just keeps on giving. You can tuck them away into a revenue
bill. You do not have to go through the appropriations process. It just
keeps giving and giving and giving.
The other irony of this entire debate is something that has happened
to me over the last year and a half when I have gone back to my
district and talked at Rotary lunches or Kiwanis lunches. They always
talk about the Presidential line-item veto. I say, ``Mark my words: We
will get it, but the Republican leadership will find a way to make sure
that President Clinton does not have the authority to get rid of their
pork barrel spending or their special interest tax loopholes in the
104th Congress.''
The provisions we are passing today do not give the President the
ability to do it in this Congress.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this
legislation, noting that 43 Governors have the line-item veto. Governor
John Engler of Michigan has spoken out strongly that it does restrain
unwise spending.
Mr. Speaker, there are some supporters of line-item veto who may have
despaired of ever getting it done. I must admit that there were days
over the past 13 months when I had my doubts. Well, in the spirit of
Sean Connery I am reminded ``never to say never.'' Today we fulfill a
major plank in the Contract With America and implement a powerful
budget-cutting tool. Title II of the bill before us is the text of our
conference agreement on the line-item veto. It reflects countless hours
of meetings and discussions--and an enormously good faith effort by all
the conferees to ensure that this significant delegation of power from
the Congress to the President is effective, workable and clearly
defined. The conferees understood the magnitude of a delegation of
authority of this kind. Quite simply, it is historic. Although some of
our colleagues are fundamentally opposed to transferring such power to
the President--any President--I firmly believe that this is a
legitimate and necessary element of our battle to bring the Federal
budget under control. We have been very careful in this conference
report to carefully define our terms and the limitations that Congress
is placing on the President's use of the line-item veto authority. The
purpose of the line-item veto is to add to our arsenal of weapons
against low-priority or unnecessary Federal spending. The goal is
deficit reduction and we have ensured that the authority applies only
to money being spent. Just as 43 Governors do today, the President,
under the line-item veto, will have the ability to cancel individual
items of spending and tax legislation if he believes doing so will help
reduce the deficit. The burden of proof will then be on the Congress to
come up with a two-thirds majority to override the President and spend
the money over his objections. If the Congress is unable to muster that
supermajority, then the funds are not spent and are applied to deficit
reduction. The remarkable thing about this measure is that it
fundamentally shifts the bias away from spending and toward saving the
taxpayers money. That is a change that more than 70 percent of
Americans have been asking for. Americans know that when huge spending
and tax bills go to the President for his signature or veto, often
individual items of less or even questionable national merit get
carried into law by the greater good in the bill. That costs money--
lots of money--and that's what this tool is designed to control. Our
conference built upon the House enhanced rescission model and, I
believe, made it stronger by expanding the authority beyond
appropriation measures to include new entitlements. As everyone knows,
entitlement programs are a major culprit in our current budget
imbalance--and the line-item veto should help to curb the creation of
new programs that we can't afford. The conference report also allows
the President to use his line-item veto to cancel limited tax
benefits--provisions that are slipped into the Tax Code to benefit 100
or fewer people at a cost to the taxpayers at large.
Mr. Speaker, our staff has spent countless hours refining the
language of this measure to ensure that we understand the repercussions
of this delegation of authority. While we recognize the possibility for
gaming of the system--by the Congress and the executive--we have built
in important safeguards, including an 8-year sunset to allow us an
opportunity to assess the line-item veto's effectiveness. Finally, Mr.
Speaker, I point out to my colleagues that the President and the House
leadership have agreed that the effective date of this new authority
will be January 1, 1997, or enactment of a 7-year balanced budget,
whichever comes sooner. This is a practical result that ensures
sufficient time for the Executive and Congress to consider the
measure's provisions and impact. In addition, this specified effective
date allows the line-item veto to rise above short-term political
realities. I think it is an enormously sensible decision and I applaud
the President and our leaders for it.
Mr. Speaker, last night the other body adopted this conference report
by a 69-to-31 vote. It's time for this House to deliver a similar
result.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip and tireless leader
in the battle to achieve a line-item veto.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Contract With America
Advancement Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
This bill proves the pundits wrong. The Contract With America is
alive and well, and is working to better the lives of American
families.
I am especially pleased by two provisions in this legislation.
The regulatory flexibility act is a small but significant step in the
right direction for making commonsense changes to our regulatory
system.
This bill will bring much needed congressional accountability to the
regulatory process. No Congress before this one has been willing to
take responsibility for the way laws are implemented after they are
signed.
I believe it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to
conduct oversight over agencies' promulgation of regulations, and am
very pleased that this, the first Republican Congress in 40 years, is
the one to make it happen.
We also are finally enacting the line-item veto.
When I was first elected to the House, I made the line-item veto one
of my top priorities.
This may not be a good week for pork, but it is a great week for the
American taxpayer.
Gone are the days, when Congresses inserted pork barrel projects to
buy votes for their Members.
With this line-item veto, we will make certain that those days of
wasting taxpayer dollars are gone forever.
I applaud my colleagues for their work on this legislation, and I
urge them to send this bill to the President.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, but it is interesting how we got here. We got here today
because the Republican leadership and the Democrat administration
worked together to bring this bill forward. We have Democrats and
Republicans working together, and when we work together it is amazing
what we can accomplish.
This bill is important. It does deal with the Social Security earning
limitation. For too long senior citizens have been penalized for
working with outrageously high tax rates. This bill corrects that.
The line-item veto is an important bill. It helps to spotlight
individual appropriations. We pass these omnibus bills where none of us
really have an opportunity to study each and every provision in that
legislation. The line-item veto will give us an opportunity

[[Page H3004]]

to look at these items individually and give the President a role as to
whether they should become law.
Small business regulatory relief, there are problems with small
business. The oversight function of Congress should be to take a look
at what regulations impact on small business, and this bill does that.
Increasing the debt ceiling, we all know that we need to do that. We
have already spent the money. We have got to honor our obligations.
But it is interesting, why have we delayed for so long in bringing
these bills forward? As I listened on the floor when we were
considering other debt extension bills, the Republican leadership told
us we could not consider it because we had to deal with deficit
reduction. This bill does not deal with deficit reduction; it deals
with extending the debt limit, as it should.
Perhaps the only lesson that we can take out of this bill on deficit
reduction and balancing the budget is if we use the process of
Democrats and Republicans working together, then we can accomplish a
balanced budget in this Congress. So I hope this legislation will spill
over to other efforts between Democrats and Republicans to bring sound
legislation to the floor, not in a vacuum by one party, but in
cooperation by both parties, between the Congress and the President. If
we do that, we will indeed serve our constituents well.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairwoman of the Committee on Small
Business.
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
chairman very much for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3136. I support the
increase in the senior citizens earning threshold, I support the line-
item veto, and particularly I support title III of this act, which is
of enormous importance to this country's 21 million small businesses.
Subtitle A of title III provides that agencies will provide plain
English guides on new regulations for small business. Subtitle B
provides for a regulatory ombudsman to assist small businesses in
disputes with the Federal Government. These two subtitles, along with
subtitle D, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, were among the very top
priorities listed by the White House Conference on Small Business.
I would like to focus for a moment on the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
which those interested in small business have been working for for many
years. The Regulatory Flexibility Act has been on the books since 1980,
and it provides that agencies must review all new rules and regulations
for their specific impact on small business and then help mitigate that
impact if it is extreme. But there is no enforcement mechanism, and the
agencies have largely ignored it.
This bill would provide for judicial review of the process, and thus
put teeth in that Regulatory Flexibility Act. This judicial review of
regulatory flexibility has strong bipartisan support. It has passed
this House by a vote of 415 to 15, and last week it passed the Senate
by 100 to 0.
There are many good reasons to support this bill, but its value and
importance to small business is the best reason to me and to the
Committee on Small Business.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3136.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] who has been a champion for
regulatory reform and also a leader in the line-item veto battle.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, small business is really the largest employer in our
country. Small business in fact is the cornerstone of free enterprise.
Today small business in the United States is being choked to death on
mindless regulations, edicts and paperwork, and federally mandated
compliance forms.
When they write the epitaph of American small business, let me read
for you what the tombstone is going to say: ``Here lies American small
business, murdered by overregulation, murdered by taxation and
litigation.''
Today we cannot totally free the bondage of small business in
America. What we can do today, however, is allow some regulatory
flexibility, and that is what this legislation does.
Today, through this legislation, small business will have a small but
a fighting chance to challenge this crazy Federal bureaucratic
rulemaking process. Today we can let Congress place a small check on
the bureaucrats who have made a lifetime career of pumping out
mindless, costly, and ineffective regulations.
Today, if we are going to sink our Nation further into the rathole of
debt, we can, through these regulatory reform measures, give small
business, who employ our people, who pay our taxes, a small but
fighting chance to dig us out of that rathole of debt.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] who has been a leader in this
Congress on regulatory reform and an active participant on our
committee, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time,
and thank him for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the line-item veto
provision, the provision removing penalties from senior citizens, and
title III, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996.
What we have before us today is a small step toward reforming our
regulatory process. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we get Government off
of our backs, and back on our side in this country.
Small businesses create 75 percent of the new jobs in this country,
and I am particularly pleased to support the provisions of this bill
that will allow small businesses to challenge agency decisions in court
when they ignore the needs of small businesses and they write new
regulations and create redtape.
I am also very pleased with subtitle E that will bring agency
regulations back to Congress for a vote. This part of the bill
originated as a companion bill to my legislation, H.R. 450, the
Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. And I was pleased to work with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Clinger, the gentleman from New
York, Chairman Solomon, and the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hyde,
along with Senator Don Nickles, to craft provisions that will be
acceptable to both bodies and provide for meaningful congressional
review of agency rulemaking actions.
Our Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs has held field hearings around
the country. We have heard from many people who are suffering because
of Federal over-regulation. One person is Bruce Gohman, a small
businessman in Minnesota, who says that he consciously limits his job
creation to 50 employees. He will not hire more people because of the
fear of being subjected to more redtape and more Government
regulations.
I say we need this reform to allow Mr. Gohman to create more good
jobs and to pay higher wages to his employees so that we can get this
economy going again.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support title III of this bill, and say it is
time we have regulations that are smarter, safer, and provide more
environmental protection, and less redtape.
Mr. Speaker, this title is one of the most important pieces of
legislation for small business growth and job creation that we will
take up this year. In fact, it is the number one legislative priority
for small business. Although this is not a comprehensive regulatory
reform bill, this is an important first step in enacting needed reform
for hard-working Americans in their struggle against the regulatory
bureaucracy in Washington. Moreover, this title will hold the
administration accountable for the impact of rules on all Americans.
As I have said, I am especially pleased with the reforms in subtitles
D and E, which address issues that I have been concerned about for a
number of years. Subtitle D will strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility
Act by allowing affected small businesses, local governments, and other
small entities to challenge certain agency action and inaction in
court. Currently, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal
agencies issuing new rules to consider the impact the rules would have
on small entities and prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless
it certifies that the rule

[[Page H3005]]

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. In my experience working with Vice President Quayle on
the President's Council on Competitiveness, I discovered that the
Federal agencies often ignored the mandate of the act and refused to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The limited judicial review
provided in subtitle D will serve as a needed check on agency behavior
and help enforce the mandate of the act.
Subtitle E will add a new chapter 8 to the Administrative Procedure
Act, which will allow Congress to review agency rulemaking actions and
determine whether Congress should pass joint resolutions under
expedited procedures to overrule the rulemaking action. This subtitle
originated almost one year ago as companion legislation to H.R. 450,
the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, which was reported out of my
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and
Regulatory Affairs. Although I would have liked this subtitle to go
further, the bill we are going to pass today is a good start and can
easily be amended in the future to provide for an expedited procedure
to review and stop the most wrong-headed rulemaking proceedings before
they waste more agency and private resources.
As the principal House sponsor of the Congressional Review subtitle,
I am very proud that this bill will soon be sent to the President
again, and I hope signed by him this time. The House and Senate passed
an earlier version of this subtitle as section 3006 of H.R. 2586, which
was vetoed by the President last November. Before it becomes law, this
bill will have passed the Senate at least four times and passed the
House at least twice. In discussions with the Senate and House co-
sponsors this past week, we made several changes to the version of this
subtitle that both bodies passed on November 9, 1995, and the version
that the Senate passed last week. I will be happy to work with Chairman
Hyde and Chairman Clinger on a document that we can insert in the
Congressional Record at a later time to serve as the equivalent of a
floor managers' statement. But because this bill will not likely have a
conference report or managers' statement prior to passage, I offer the
following brief explanation for some of the changes in the subtitle:

definition of a ``major rule''

The version of subtitle E that we will pass today takes the
definition of a ``major rule'' from President Reagan's Executive Order
12291. Although President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 contains a
definition of a significant rule that is purportedly as broad, several
of the administration's significant rule determinations under Executive
Order 12866 have been questionable. The administration's narrow
interpretation of ``significant rulemaking action'' under Executive
Order 12866 helped convince me that Congress should not adopt that
definition. We intend the term ``major rule'' to be broadly construed,
particularly the non-numerical factors contained in the new subsection
804(2) (B) and (C).

agency interpretive rules, general statements of policy, guidelines,
and statements of agency policy and procedure are covered by the bill

All too often, agencies have attempted to circumvent the notice and
comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by trying to
give legal effect to general policy statements, guidelines, and agency
policy and procedure manuals. Although agency interpretive rules,
general statements of policy, guideline documents, and agency policy
and procedure manuals may not be subject to the notice and comment
provisions of section 553(c) of title 5, United States Code, these
types of documents are covered under the congressional review
provisions of the new chapter 8 of title 5.
Under section 801(a), covered rules, with very few exceptions, may
not go into effect until the relevant agency submits a copy of the rule
and an accompanying report to both Houses of Congress. Interpretive
rules, general statements of policy, and analogous agency policy
guidelines are covered without qualification because they meet the
definition of a ``rule'' borrowed from section 551 of title 5, and are
not excluded from the definition of a rule.
Pursuant to section 801(3)(C), a rule of agency organization,
procedure, or practice, is only excluded if it ``does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties.'' The focus of
the test is not on the type of rule but on its effect on the rights or
obligations of nonagency parties. A statement of agency procedure or
practice with a truly minor, incidental effect on nonagency parties is
excluded from the definition of a rule. Any other effect, whether
direct or indirect, on the rights or obligations of nonagency parties
is a substantial effect within the meaning of the exception. Thus, this
exception should be read narrowly and resolved in favor of nonagency
parties who can demonstrate that the rule will have a nontrivial effect
on their rights or obligations.

the 60-day delay on the effectiveness of major rules and the emergency
and good cause exceptions

Two of the three previous Senate versions of this subtitle would have
delayed the effective date of a major rule until at least 45 days after
the relevant agency submitted the major rule and an accompanying report
to Congress. One of the Senate versions and both House versions opted
for at least a 60-day delay on the effectiveness of a major rule. The
60-day period was selected to provide a more meaningful time within
which Congress could act to pass a joint resolution before a major rule
went into effect. Even though the expedited congressional procedures
extend beyond this period--and some of the special House and Senate
rules would never expire--it would be preferable for the Congress to
act before outside parties are forced to comply with the rule.
The subtitle provides an emergency exception in section 801(c) and a
limited good cause exception in section 808(2) from the 60-day delay on
the effectiveness of a major rule. Sections 801(c) and 808(2) should be
narrowly construed, for any other reading of these exceptions would
defeat the purpose of the delay period. The emergency exception in
section 801(c) is only available pursuant to Executive order and after
congressional notification that a specified situation exists. The good
cause exception in section 808(2) is borrowed from the chapter 5 of the
Administrative Procedure Act and applies only to rules which are exempt
from notice and comment under section 553. Even in such cases, the
agency should provide for the 60-day delay in the effective date unless
such delay is clearly contrary to the public interest. This is because
a determination under section 801(c) and 808(2) shall have no effect on
the procedures under 802 to enact joint resolutions of disapproval
respecting such rule, and it is contrary to the policy of this
legislation that major rules take effect before Congress has had a
meaningful opportunity to act on such joint resolutions.

all executive agencies and so-called independent agencies are covered
by the bill

Congress intends this legislation to be comprehensive. It covers any
agency or other entity that fits the ``Federal agency'' definition
borrowed from 5 U.S.C. 551(1). That definition includes ``each
authority of the government'' that is not expressly excluded by section
551(1)(A)-(H). The objective is to cover each and every entity in the
executive branch, whether it is a department, independent agency,
independent establishment, or Government corporation, whether or not it
conducts its rulemaking under section 553(c), and whether or not it is
even covered by other provisions of title 5, U.S. Code. This definition
of ``Federal agency'' is also intended to cover entities and
establishments within the executive branch, such as the U.S. Postal
Service, that are sometimes excluded from the definition of an agency
in other parts of the U.S. Code. This is because Congress is enacting
the congressional review legislation, in large part, as an exercise of
its oversight and legislative responsibility over the executive branch.
Regardless of the justification for excluding or granting independence
for certain entities from the coverage of certain laws, that
justification does not apply in this legislation, where Congress has an
interest in exercising its constitutional oversight and legislative
responsibility over all executive branch agencies and entities within
its jurisdiction.
Examples too numerous to mention abound in which Federal entities and
agencies issue regulations and rules that impact businesses, small and
large, as well as major segments of the American public, yet are not
subject to the traditional 5 U.S.C. 553(c) rulemaking process. It is
essential that this regulatory reform measure include every agency,
authority, or entity that establishes policies affecting all or any
segment of the general public. Where it is necessary, a few special
adjustments have been made, such as the exclusion for the monetary
policy activities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, rules of particular applicability, and rules of agency
management and personnel. Where it is not necessary, no exemption is
provided and the rule is that the entity's regulations are covered by
this act. This is made clear by the provisions of the new section 806
which states that the act applies notwithstanding any other provision
of law.

{time} 1315

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce].
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which
is urgently needed to avoid financial chaos. This is a compromise bill.
In exchange for extending the debt limit, it provides a much needed
procedure for reducing unnecessary pork barrel spending. That procedure
is the line-item

[[Page H3006]]

veto. As cochairman of the congressional pork busters coalition, I
strongly support the line-item veto as an essential tool to eliminate
pork from appropriations bills. We have been battling pork for 6 years
on the floor of this House, but not always successfully.
This legislation provides much needed back up power to the Executive,
allowing him to surgically slice out those items which do not deserve
funding. Governors in 43 States, including California, already have
this power and it has worked well. In our State of California, it has
allowed our Governors to balance the budget. The House voted for a
line-item veto over a year ago, and it has been bottled up in the
Senate ever since. This is a golden opportunity to finally achieve our
goal.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank one of the
heroes of D-day for the opportunity, the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons].
When the new majority came to power 1 year ago, they promised the
American people that Congress would change its ways, that we would live
by all the laws of the land. Obviously one of the laws that we are not
going to live by is the law of regulating false advertising. The very
name of this bill is false advertising. It has nothing to do with the
Contract With America. It has everything to do with raising the debt
limit by $600 billion.
The American people have consistently said that the biggest threat to
this Nation is our horrible debt. It is a vulnerability greater than
any other thing because it is eating up so much of our taxes. Just the
interest on the national debt eats up more of our taxes than Medicare,
than Medicaid, twice as much as Medicaid, the national defense, 10
times more than food stamps, and 12 times more than welfare.
In the 2 minutes that I have spoken to my colleagues, this Nation has
spent $1 million on interest on the national debt, just in the past 2
minutes.
So what is their solution? We will borrow more money. We will pay
more interest. That is crazy.
Mr. Speaker, what do they do? Do they come to the floor and be honest
with the American people and say we want to borrow some more money? No,
they hide it. They hide it behind three bills that have already passed
this body on their own merit, three bills that were just waiting for
the U.S. Senate to agree to so they can become law.
There is only one purpose for this bill. It is to borrow more money
and to waste more money on interest on the national debt. Instead of
the balanced budget that the American people were promised, this is
just more borrow and spend. But it is not the first time since I have
come to Congress that this has happened. Around November 7, 1989, I got
a call from then-President Bush's White House. I was very new to this
body. It said, can you do us a favor? Can you help us just one time
temporarily raise the national debt? Just a temporary thing.
Mr. Speaker, I had only been here a couple of weeks, and, my
goodness, the President of the United States called. I was
flabbergasted and honored, and, of course, Mr. President, you made
perfect sense. We have got to do that. So the debt was raised from 2.87
trillion to 3.1 trillion. That was not the end of it. In October 26,
1990, this House came back, and H.R. 5838 permanently raised the debt
ceiling from 3.1 to 4.1 trillion, just a couple years later. And then
again on August 5, 1993, the House raised the debt ceiling from 4.1 to
4.9.

It is like saying, I am going to pay off my Visa card but first I am
going to raise my debt limit on my visa card from 5,000 to 10,000. You
do not ever get there.
Today they are being asked to raise it from 4.9 to 5.5 trillion.
Voting to raise the debt limit is a lot like an alcoholic saying, I am
just going to have one more drink. A very good friend of mine from
Pascagoula, MS, just came out of alcoholic rehab. He said, I would wake
up every morning and I could always find an excuse for just one more
drink. It is Thanksgiving. It is the week before Christmas. It is Mardi
Gras. It is spring break. There is always one more excuse, one more
drink. But until he work up and said, I am not going to have any more
excuses, no more drinks, did he cure his problem.
Mr. Speaker, America has to run out of excuses. We have got to quit
borrowing. We cannot be for a balanced budget and then turn around and
borrow $600 billion more. Let us draw the line today. Let us quit
fooling the American people. Let us do what is right for this country.
I thank the chairman and the great hero of D-Day. This gentleman, in
case Members do not know, paratrooped into Normandy the night before
the D-Day invasion. He is going to end his congressional career this
year. He is a great American, and we are going to miss him.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Archer] for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and, of course, congratulate
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. We are going to miss him
greatly.
Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that we have gotten to the point where we
have to rely on the line-item veto to turn the corner on the profligate
spending that we have seen go on for decades. We have seen it
successful in 38 States. I would simply like the Record to show that in
our State of California, Governor Wilson has used the line-item veto
354 times, saving our State's taxpayers nearly $800 million.
I hope very much that we can proceed with passage of this very
important measure.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Trafficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, let us see if this sounds right. Congress
is frustrated with political pork. Congress has tried but Congress is
fed up with pork-barrel spending.
Congress honestly and desperately wants to stop all of this political
pork. So Congress today, in both desperation and frustration, has
decided that the only way to stop political pork is by giving the top
politician in America, the President, the power to control political
pork. Beam me up here. Let me remind everybody herein assembled, this
is not Rotary. This is the Super Bowl of politics. And as we speak,
White House staffers are not only watching and listening to what we say
but how we say it, and they will be individually scoring your voting
records to determine who may need some discipline.
In America the people are supposed to govern. My problem with the
line item veto is very simple. It is an awesome transfer of the
people's power to one person who needs to get elected and then needs 34
Senators in his hip pocket to run America. I guarantee not one of those
34 Senators will ever worry about a line item veto.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this today in the little bit of time I have,
watch what we say from here on out, bite our tongues, mind our votes,
mind our votes. And consider our votes politically, folks, because the
White House is watching, the White House is keeping score.
I think there is a better way to do this without transferring the
power from the people to the White House. We are making the White House
too powerful in the United States of America. I think we are
endangering the freedom of our Nation and the power of our people.
With that, I appreciate the gentleman for giving me the time. I want
to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
I have been quite aggressive in some of my opposition at times to the
Committee on Ways and Means, but never to the gentleman personally. I
think the gentleman is an absolute great American. We are going to miss
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. I thank him for putting up
with me. A lot of Members love him; I certainly do.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, as one who did not support the line item
veto

[[Page H3007]]

because I do not think we can always count on the President of the
United States, regardless of who he is, not to have some pettiness in
his surroundings. But what I do not understand is there was a big push
to do the line item veto early on over here, and I understand that this
transaction will not go into place until 1997. Why would not the line
item veto go and this President have the benefits of it for the next 7
months?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by saying
evidently the next President-elect will have the line item veto
authority. It is amazing to me. I think it is unconstitutional, to
start with, but I can remember a vote on a Btu tax, and the President
wanted a Btu tax. I can remember that I happened to be the only
Democrat in the Congress to speak out against that tax. With the line
item veto it is not a very comfortable position. Maybe someone from
that side might say the reason why.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We are
going to miss him as well.
Mr. CLINGER. Just to briefly say, Mr. Speaker, the President has
agreed to the date. Obviously he is confident that he is in fact going
to be reelected. I do not share that confidence, but he believes that
he will be. Therefore, he is going to have that ability on January 1 in
his view. The second thing is he has the key to provide the line-item
veto to his use now upon signing a balanced budget agreement.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, I do not care if it is a Democrat
or Republican, we are all Americans. We are expanding the power of the
Presidency. That is not good for our country, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the deputy whip, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], a respected Member of the House.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
This is the third time the House of Representatives has taken up
legislation to raise the earnings limit for working seniors in the
104th Congress. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Archer], who I think for 13 Congresses has worked to make this thing
possible. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Bunning], who is the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee,
along with Members of the 100th class who have been working on this
project for another 8 years. They have made this thing happen.
Mr. Speaker, every time this legislation has come to the floor, it
has passed with nearly a huge bipartisan margin. It is clear the House
understands that working seniors, people who have to earn money by the
sweat of their brow, usually people who have earned money by the sweat
of their brow their whole life, who have not been able to accumulate
huge savings or investments or those revenues or huge pensions, that
today they have to go out and work to supplement their pension, to
supplement their Social Security so that they can have a decent life,
so that they can help put their grandchildren through college, so that
they can maybe go on a vacation or somebody pay their property taxes or
even buy a new car. These people are affected by this bill.

I am proud to be able to stand here today and say that those seniors
will be able to make more money this year without paying a tax on work.
Those seniors will be able to eventually realize and take the earnings
test up to $30,000 so that they can share the benefits of work that all
Americans can have without paying a penalty or a tax on it.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wish we were able to raise the limits
faster, as in earlier versions of this bill, but I am glad we have been
able to come up with a plan that the President will sign. The seniors
need and deserve relief. They have waited patiently for too long. In
fact, I think those people who have to work by the sweat of their brow,
people who work at McDonald's and flower shops and drive school buses
need a break today, and we are going to give it to them.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, to my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is leaving this august body and has
been a friend for a lot of years, everything that is in this bill that
we are debating here today, as soon as the President signs it, will go
into effect with the exception of the line-item veto; is that right?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this would also go into
effect if the President would agree to the balanced-budget agreement.
Mr. HEFNER. The balanced budget is not what we are voting on.

{time} 1330

The gentleman is saying to the President, If you will do what we want
to do, we'll give you the line-item veto this year, but everything else
extending the debt limit and everything else will go into effect as
soon as he signs it, with the exception of the line-item veto which we
passed well over a year ago, in the first year of this new
administration.
Why? I do not understand why the gentleman would object to giving the
President the line-item veto when he has got all these bills that are
coming up for all the appropriations for everything that we authorized
this year. Why would the gentleman want to wait until 1997, because we
can save a lot of money? Would it have been possible until you make it
effective as soon as the bill is signed?
Mr. Speaker, just as among friends here, we are just friends here,
would it not have been possible to put into this legislation that as
soon as the President signs it, he will have the line-item veto? It is
just that simple.
Yes or no; could the gentleman have done it that way?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLINGER. That could be done but would kill the conference
agreement and prevent enactment of the bill. The President has in fact
agreed that the date should be January----
Mr. HEFNER. That is not exactly true, Mr. Clinger.
Mr. CLINGER. He did agree to that date; did he not?
Mr. HEFNER. That was the best he could get, but I think he would
agree, if it were made possible, that the line-item veto would go into
effect as soon as he--I do not think he would have any problem with
that.
Mr. CLINGER. I would understand that, but if the gentleman would
yield----
Mr. HEFNER. But it could be done.
Mr. CLINGER. There is a recognition that this is an effort to try
to----
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time, the gentleman is
setting the legislative agenda here. He could have made it in order
that everything would go into effect, the line-item veto, everything,
would have gone into effect. It could have been done; am I right or
not? Yes or no?
Mr. CLINGER. No. Not and pass the bill.
Mr. HEFNER. I reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] has expired.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
The American farmer and the owner of a small business will be, at the
end of this day, applauding the action of the Congress of the United
States. For too long they have suffered the indignity of the Federal
regulator, the agency head, who burdens the farmer and burdens the
small business man with countless items of regulation that stifle
business, it stifles the ability of the farmer to expand his operation
and, thus, have created a situation in our country where entrepreneurs
are afraid to hire new people, are afraid to embark on new enterprises.
What we do here today in reforming regulatory flexibility is for the
first time give a disaffected regulatee, if there be such a word, the
right to appeal a burdensome regulation that has been foisted upon them
by administrative agencies. That is a tremendous advance. Instead of
having to sit back

[[Page H3008]]

and take whatever the agency says as a mandate, now for the first time
we will have the farmer and the small business man say to himself and
to the community, ``I'll be able to do something about this adverse
regulation.''
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding this time to me, and let me just say I support this
legislation in every aspect of it. I think many, many good things are
happening here.
I only have a minute and a half. I want to talk about the line-item
veto. I think we need to look at the record first of all. Congress over
the years, Republicans and Democrats, have spent a tremendous amount of
money, more than, perhaps, we should have. I think this country really
wants mechanisms in place which are going to help us reduce that burden
of spending, and I believe strongly the line-item veto will do it.
I have listened to this whole argument today because I am interested
in it. As a Governor of a State for 8 years, I had the line-item veto.
We are one of the 43 States which has it. I can tell my colleagues it
was beneficial in my State from both points of view. It caused us to
get into a room together and to discuss our budgets, and to make
absolutely sure we were in concert with each other and we were doing
what was in the best interests of the State. It was beneficial, without
a doubt, to the budget process of the State of Delaware and I am
convinced it will be beneficial to the budget process of the United
States of America.
We, in my judgment, are not yielding power to the President
absolutely. We are allowing the President to become involved in the
budget process. But we also retain the right to override vetoes in the
circumstances in which they arise, and, quite frankly, if we have a
President who for political reasons, ideological reasons, political
reasons, whatever it may be, decides to make an issue of all of this,
we have the ability to just as easily point out that it is politics and
that it is wrong.
What will really happen in this process is that we will be able to
sit down together to negotiate things that are absolutely in the pork
barrel category. They can be eliminated.
So for the reasons of that and the rest of this very good bill I hope
we will all support it here in a few minutes.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Quinn].
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the entire bill which
includes the most important line-item veto. This 104th Congress has
been hailed as a reform-minded Congress. We have made historic attempts
to cut wasteful Government spending, scale back a bloated bureaucracy
and, most importantly, balance our Federal budget.
Although we have made great strides in these areas, our budgets still
suffer from a deficit increasing plague which is known as pork barrel
spending. In order to complete this goal of returning fiscal
responsibility to the Federal Government, we must enact this measure.
With the line-item veto the President can literally draw a line
through any item in the Federal budget without having to veto the
entire budget. No longer will taxpayer dollars be spent on wasteful
projects. Instead, the stroke of a pen from the President will
eliminate millions of dollars of pork from each year's budget.
Furthermore, these savings will go into a lockbox, insuring that they
be used for deficit reduction. In fact, the General Accounting Office,
during the course of our discussion on this matter these last 2 years,
has reported that they would have saved or been able to save over $70
billion had the line-item veto been in effect.
Mr. Speaker, we are here again with this opportunity to pass a
historic measure. On a day when we are asking to support an increase in
the debt limit to a record $5.5 billion, I think it is imperative and
it is appropriate that we give the President this authority.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment at this time to commend our
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is
retiring after this session. We said yesterday at the Committee on
Rules, I will say it again, his work on the line-item veto bill, as
well as many other numerous reform problems and perspectives, has been
truly remarkable. Without his effort it would still be stuck in
conference. We appreciate his work and ask everybody to vote for the
line-item veto.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding time to a person that wants to talk against the bill.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is increases the debt of the United
States by $600 billion. At 5-percent interest, that is another $30
billion a year that taxpayers will have to pay.
I think it is unconscionable to continue to increase the debt without
some guidelines, without some actual legislative change, at the very
least some direction, to cut the spending of this overbloated
Government. Borrowing has obscured the true siege of Government.
Ultimately we must reach a balanced budget. This bill does not do that,
and that is why I am voting against it.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me rise in opposition to H.R. 3136 and mention that,
along with some of the Members who have spoken earlier, I, too, believe
that this bill will ultimately be found constitutional if it is signed
into law. I also note with curiosity that we made the line-item veto
effective after the term of the current President, Bill Clinton, has
expired, and I think that is somewhat questionable as to why this
Congress, under the new majority, has decided not to allow this
particular President the opportunity to exercise a line-item veto if
they are so adamantly for it.
But let me mention something that I find extremely disturbing in this
particular bill, which I cannot understand why it is even in here, and
that is the whole issue of regulatory reform. I do not think there is
any Member of Congress who does not wish to see regulatory flexibility
and decreasing the burden on small business so long as we provide
protections to the environment, to workers, and to people, our
consumers.
But, disturbingly, this bill commits an end run on the whole issue of
regulatory reform because what it does is it provides, in this
particular piece of legislation, through an amendment which I must say
just came to us last night, which amends this bill which came to us
just 2 days ago, the whole structure used to regulate agencies and
regulate businesses out there in this country. How someone is supposed
to be able to know what something that they got 2 days ago completely
means and then now have to analyze something that they got last night,
what that means is beyond me. But that is what we are being asked to
swallow here through this end run.
I am not sure what is wrong with this particular bill, but why was it
that the majority was unwilling to let sunshine on these provisions so
we could decide if, in fact, this is the true regulatory reform we
need?
Let me mention a couple of other things. This legislation creates, in
the regulatory reform provisions, so-called regulatory fairness boards
and advocacy panels. These are panels and boards that may be made up
completely of a few favored small businesses that are trying to get
themselves out of regulation, or can even include people who are
exclusively major campaign contributors to particular Members of
Congress or to particular parties. That I find very disturbing and very
offensive.
What else does this legislation do? It allows for private ex parte
communications. In other words, all the interested parties are normally
under the customary practice allowed to sit in, in an open and fair
process on the record, on what should be done with regard to regulatory
reform.
This legislation says no, we do not need to do that any more. Let us
go ahead and let a few people who happen to sit on these boards or
advocacy panels have the opportunity to privately, without the other
interested parties,

[[Page H3009]]

sit down with some of these agencies that are actually going to create
these particular regulations or remove certain regulations. That is
unfair to those businesses that are trying to do this in a fair and
evenhanded manner.
Finally, the environment is at stake. I would urge all the Members
to, if they really have a chance, take a look at this. We are going to
take out the penalties for environmental violations of law.
As I was saying, take a look at the provisions that deal with
environmental regulations. What we see here are waivers of penalties
that would otherwise apply to those businesses that we find in
violation of our clean water and safe drinking water standards. Any
penalty for having violated those particular laws or regulations could
be waived.
Not only that, but because we have not had enough time to examine it,
it is going to be fairly clear from some of the cryptic language that
is used that they are going to create a nest egg for attorneys, because
they will be able to go in there and take this to court because so much
of this is so difficult to understand. What they are doing though is
putting the consumer at risk, they are putting the environment at risk,
and I would urge Members to take a close look for all the reasons I
stated on why we should oppose H.R. 3136.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to very briefly respond to the gentleman who has just spoken.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation on small business regulatory reform
should not come as a big surprise to him because it was debated
thoroughly on the floor of this House last year. This was one of the
elements of the Contract With America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have voted on the three main components of this bill
already, regulatory reform, Social Security earnings limit increase,
and a line-item veto. I think it is very important that the American
public knows what this bill is. This is adding things to increase the
debt for our children. What is wrong with the scenario to say that we
are in debt, we have no figured-out way, no agreed-to plan, to solve
that debt, and we are going back to the bank to borrow more money?

{time} 1345

Mr. Speaker, the Members of this Congress need to make sure they know
what they are doing when they vote to extend the debt and jeopardize
the future of our children by not doing the proper thing in terms of
living within our means today.
Consider what it will be like when we are 70 or 80 years of age. They
will not, our children or grandchildren, be able to buy a home, will
not be able to own a car. Their living standard will be halved, because
we did the wrong thing today. This is not about the Social Security
earnings limit, this is not about the line-item veto, this is not about
reg reform, this is about not living up to the very hard responsibility
that this Congress has been entrusted with, and that is not to live
beyond our means.
I would urge each Member of Congress to consider what the real issue
is here today, and vote not to extend his debt limit until we have an
agreement that gives us a plan on how we manage the finances of this
country.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this
legislation
Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that I have absolutely no
quarrel with the heart of this bill--the mechanism by which we enact a
long-term increase in the debt limit. My colleagues know that I have
long advocated decisive action on the debt limit and feel this step is
long overdue. In addition, I have supported the increase in the Social
Security earnings limit and believe the so-called reg flex provisions
of this bill are an improvement on current law.
My opposition is prompted exclusively by the inclusion of the line-
item veto in this must-pass legislation.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, enactment of the line-item veto is a
serious error and a fundamental violation of the basic constitutional
principal of the separation of powers. Every school child in America
should have learned that. The separation of powers is a foundation of
our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. David Samuels has it right in an Op-Ed piece in
today's New York Times--``Line Item Lunacy.'' I include this article
for the Record.
David Samuels writes:

The line-item veto would hand over unchecked power to a
minority President with minority support in Congress, while
opponents would have to muster two-thirds support to override
the President's veto.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 28, 1996]

Line-Item Lunacy

(By David Samuels)

It's a scene from a paranoid thriller by Oliver Stone: A
mercurial billionaire, elected President with 35 percent of
the vote, holds America hostage to his minority agenda by
vetoing item after item in the Federal budget, in open breach
of the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the
Constitution. Impossible? Not anymore.
With the announcement by Republican leaders that they plan
to pass the line-item veto this spring, the specter of a
Napoleonic Presidency has moved from the far reaches of poli-
sci fiction, where it belongs, to the brink of political
possibility.
At the moment, of course, a Presidential dictatorship is
far from the minds of the G.O.P. leadership and White House
Democrats, who hope that the line-item veto would encourage
the President to eliminate pork-barrel giveaways and
corporate tax breaks. But to see the measure as a simple
procedural reform is to ignore the forces that have
reconfigured the political landscape since it was first
proposed.
Back in the 1980's, President Ronald Reagan ritually
invoked the line-item veto while shifting blame onto a
Democratic Congress for ballooning deficits. Part Republican
chestnut, part good-government gimmick, the line-item veto
became part of the Contract With America in 1994, and this
month rose to the top of the political agenda.
What the calculations of Democrats and Republicans leave
out, however, is that the unsettled politics of the 1990's
bear little relation to the political order of the Reagan
years.
In poll after poll, a majority of voters express a raging
disaffection with both major parties. With Ross Perot poised
to run in November, we could again elect our President with a
minority of the popular vote (in 1992, Mr. Clinton won with
43 percent). The line-item veto would hand over unchecked
power to a minority President with minority support in
Congress, while opponents would have to muster two-thirds
support to override the President's veto.
By opening every line in the Federal budget to partisan
attack, the likely result would be a chaotic legislature more
susceptible than ever to obstructionists who could demand a
Presidential veto of Federal arts funding or sex education
programs or aid to Israel as the price of their political
support.
And conservatives eager to cut Government waste would do
well to reflect on what a liberal minority might do to their
legislative hopes during a second Clinton term in office.
Nor would the line-item veto likely result in more
responsible executive behavior. The zigs and zags of Bill
Clinton's first term in office give us a clear picture of the
post-partisan Presidency, in which the executive freelances
across the airwaves in pursuit of poll numbers regardless of
the political coherence of his message or the decaying ties
of party. With the adoption of the line-item veto, the
temptation for Presidents to strike out on their own would
surely grow.
The specter of a President on horseback armed with coercive
powers might seem far away to those who dismissed Ross Perot
as a freak candidate in the last election. Yet no law states
that power-hungry billionaires must be possessed of Mr.
Perot's peculiar blend of personal qualities and doomed to
fail. Armed with the line-item veto, a future Ross Perrot--or
Steve Forbes--would be equipped with the means to reward and
punish members of the House and Senate by vetoing individual
budget items. This would enable an independent President to
build a coalition in Congress through a program of threats
and horse-trading that would make our present sorely flawed
system seem like a model of Ciceronian rectitude.
President Clinton has promised to sign the line-item veto
when it reaches his desk. Between now and then, the historic
breach of our constitutional separation of powers that the
measure proposes should be subject to a vigorous public
debate. At the very least, we might reflect on how we intend
to govern ourselves at a time when the certainties of two-
party politics are dissolving before our eyes.
He's absolutely right! A pure line-item veto--and the version
included in this bill is fairly pure--would give the President of the
United States new dramatic, unilateral powers. It would mean that any
President, operating in league with just 34 Senators, could strip any

[[Page H3010]]

spending proposal or tax cut, no matter their merit, from any bill. The
consolidation of power in the executive branch is undeniable.
As Mr. Samuels writes, ``By opening every line in the Federal budget
to partisan attack, the likely result would be a chaotic legislature
more susceptible than ever to obstructionists . . .''
This line-item veto could easily take legislative horse-trading to a
new level. While many President's have held out the prospect of pork in
order to enlist votes for legislation they wanted--that is, the vote
trading that occurred during the NAFTA debate--the line-item veto will
allow a President to threaten specific programs and projects proposed
by Members in order to compel their cooperation on other votes.
This is a dramatic shift in the balance of power is an open
invitation to any President to engage in legislative blackmail. For
example, what if President Clinton decided to remove only Republican
initiatives from a measure? If 34 Democratic Senators uphold his
action, the President wins.
We all recognize the genius of the framers of our U.S. Constitution.
They did not want a king or a dictator or an oligarchy--a small group
ruling the Nation. So they wrote the Constitution based on a delicate
system of checks and balances and the separation of powers doctrine.
I have supported a so-called expedited rescissions process which will
maintain the delicate balance of powers by allowing the President to
reject spending and tax changes with a majority vote of Congress.
I am convinced, however, that the Supreme Court of the United States
will save this Congress from itself. This proposed violates the
foundation of our Constitution and will be overturned at its first
judicial challenge.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that inclusion of this line-item veto will
force me to vote ``no'' on this vital legislation.
Many of my colleagues know that I have been a strong voice urging
quick passage of a long-term debt limit extension. I spoke out on this
issue as early as November 15 in a letter to Speaker gingrich and again
in letters in late January, in late February, and early March.
And today--finally, finally--we are doing the right thing.
For too long, many in this Congress threatened to use this long-term
debt limit extension bill as leverage in the effort to enact
entitlement reform or other legislation.
That was playing with fire.
When it comes to our financial obligations, the stakes are simply too
high. In its 219-year history, the United States has never defaulted on
its financial obligations. The full faith and credit of the United
States must not be jeopardized.
Default could set off a chain reaction of economic events, at home
and abroad, that could be both uncontrollable and catastrophic. Even
talking about a default carries costs that are being borne by the
taxpayers and private businesses.
As Members dedicated to fiscal responsibility and protecting the
economic future of our country, I am pleased that we are finally taking
responsible action to increase the debt ceiling and, in doing so, avoid
default.
Mr. Speaker, I also support enactment of a phased increase in the
Social Security earnings limit and the provisions of the small business
regulatory flexibility act.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the American people support the line-item
veto, and have supported the line-item veto for a long time. I am sorry
the gentleman from North Carolina did not stay on the floor. He asked
me the question, could we not have made this effective now? I would
return the question and say why did not the majority, the then-majority
party, provide a line-item veto for the 40 years in which they
controlled this body?
It has been suggested that there are a number of reasons why we
should not enact this legislation. It has been suggested that it is
unconstitutional. It is not really our job to determine what is
constitutional or what is not unconstitutional, but the fact is that we
do provide severability in this measure. If a provision, any provision
of the matter is considered to be unconstitutional, it can be stricken
and the rest of the matter can stand.
It has also been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we have engaged in a
reckless transfer of power. I would suggest, on the contrary, this
provides the President with a refined tool to attack the deficit
problem that looms over us. It merely gives him an effort to be more
selective in the way that he goes about deficit reduction.
Congress retains the power to override any Presidential veto. We have
not given that power away. I am sure that we will exercise that power.
We also limit his ability to do this to whole dollar amounts. He cannot
single out projects unless they are congressional earmarks. He has to
take out the entire amount if he is going to do anything, so that was,
I think, an important addition that we got in conference.
Mr. Speaker, there are the dire results that have been indicated by
some of the Members who have spoken against this measure, if, in fact,
that turns out to be true, there is a sunset provision in this
legislation that provides that there will be an opportunity to review
this matter at a time within 8 years. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a
reasonable, a reasoned, and a sensible measure that should be enacted.
I want to discuss just one other brief area that needs clarification
in this legislation. We created small business and agriculture
enforcement ombudsmen who would be appointed by the Administrator in
the SBA. Concerns have arisen in the inspector general community that
those ombudsmen would have new enforcement powers that would conflict
with those currently held by the inspectors general. I want to make it
very clear that nothing in this act is intended to supercede or
conflict with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, or to
otherwise restrict or interfere with the activities of any office of
the inspector general but, rather, be used to help our small business
and work with the inspectors general.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan support for the increase in
the debt limit and the line-item veto and regulatory reform.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the Joint
Committee on Taxation containing examples of how the tax provisions of
this measure would work.
The material referred to is as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, March 26, 1996.
Hon. Peter Blute,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Blute: This is in response to your letter of March
24, 1996, in which you requested the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation to prepare some examples of how the
provisions of S. 4, the ``Line Item Veto Act,'' would apply
to tax legislation.
The Line Item Veto Act provides that each ``limited tax
benefit'' is subject to the President's line-item veto
authority. In general, the Line Item Veto Act defines a
``limited tax benefit'' as any provision prescribing tax
consequences under the Internal Revenue Code that is either
(1) a revenue-losing provision that provides a Federal tax
deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or fewer
beneficiaries in any fiscal year for which the provision is
in effect (subject to certain exceptions described below); or
(2) a Federal tax provision that provides temporary or
permanent transitional relief to 10 or fewer beneficiaries in
any fiscal year, except to the extent that the provision
provides for the retention of prior law for all binding
contracts (or other legally-enforceable obligations) in
existence on a date contemporaneous with Congressional action
specifying such a date. The Joint Committee on Taxation is
responsible for identifying limited tax benefits.
A provision is defined as ``revenue-losing'' if it results
in a reduction in Federal tax revenues either for the first
year in which the provision is effective or for the 5-year
period beginning with the fiscal year in which the provision
is effective. A revenue-losing provision that affects 100 or
fewer beneficiaries in a fiscal year is not a limited tax
benefit if any of certain enumerated exceptions is satisfied.
First, if a provision has the effect of providing all persons
in the same industry or engaged in the same activity with the
same treatment, the item is not a limited tax benefit even if
there are 100 or fewer persons in the affected industry. For
this purpose, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
believes that a broad definition of ``activity'' is intended
to be applied, e.g. for purposes of determining whether a
proposal related to drug testing is a limited tax benefit,
all persons engaged in drug testing would be considered to be
engaged in the same activity or the same industry rather than
all persons engaged in clinical testing of drugs for certain
diseases. A second exception is for provisions that have the
effect of providing the same treatment to all persons owning
the same type of property or issuing the same type of
investment instrument. Finally, a provision is not a limited
tax benefit if the only reason the provision affects
different persons differently is because of: (1) the size or
form of the business or association involved; (2) general
demographic conditions affecting individuals, such as their
income level, marital status, number of dependents, or tax
return filing status; (3) the amount involved; or (4) a
generally available election provided under the Internal
Revenue Code.

[[Page H3011]]

We have made a preliminary review of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1995 (the ``BBA''), as passed by the Congress, and
have also provided examples of items from earlier legislation
that would constitute limited tax benefits if the Line Item
Veto Act were in effect at the time such provisions were
enacted. (The Line Item Veto Act is scheduled to go into
effect on January 1, 1997, or the day after a seven-year
balanced budget act has been enacted, whichever is earlier.)
The attached list is not intended to be dispositive of
exhaustive. The Joint Committee staff continued to analyze
the provisions in the BBA and other tax legislation and it is
possible that additional provisions will be identified as
limited tax benefits.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. If we can
be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Kies,
Chief of Staff.

Examples of Limited Tax Benefits Within the Meaning of S. 4, the Line-
Item Veto Act

the balanced budget act (``bba'') of 1995

1. Exemption from the generation-skipping transfer tax for transfers to
individuals with deceased parents (sec. 11074)

Under present law, a generation-skipping transfer tax
generally is imposed on transfers to an individual who is
more than one generation younger than the transferor. An
exception provides that a transfer from a grandparent to a
grandchild is not subject to the generation-skipping tax if
the grandchild's parent (who is the grandparent's child) is
deceased at the time of the transfer. The BBA provision would
expand the present-law exception to apply also in other
limited circumstances, e.g., to transfers to grandnieces and
grandnephews whose parents are deceased.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any
of the stated exceptions. It does not provide the same
treatment to all persons engaged in the same activity--making
generation-skipping transfers--because transfers to
individuals with deceased parents would be treated
differently than transfers to individuals whose parents are
still alive.

2. Extension of the orphan drug tax credit (sec. 11114)

Prior to January 1, 1995, a 50-percent tax credit was
allowed for qualified clinical testing expenses incurred in
the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases or conditions.
The BBA provision would extend the credit through December
31, 1997.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 drug
companies in at least one fiscal year in which the provision
would be in effect, and all persons engaged in the activity
of drug testing are not treated the same. Only certain types
of drug testing would qualify for the credit.

3. Extension of binding contract date for biomass and coal facilities
(sec. 11142)

Under present law, a tax credit is provided for fuel
produced from certain ``nonconventional sources.'' In the
case of synthetic fuel produced from coal and gas produced
from biomass, the credit is available only for fuel from
facilities placed in service before January 1, 1997, pursuant
to a binding contract entered into before January 1, 1996.
The BBA provision would extend the credit to facilities
placed in service before January 1, 1998, pursuant to a
binding contract entered into before July 1, 1996.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to affect fewer than 100 fuel
producers, and all persons engaged in the production of fuel
from nonconventional sources are not treated the same.
Persons producing fuel from nonconventional sources in
facilities placed in service after July 1, 1996 would not be
eligible for the credit.

4. Exemption from diesel fuel dyeing requirements with respect to
certain States (sec. 11143)

Under present law, an excise tax is imposed on all diesel
fuel removed from a terminal facility unless the fuel is
destined for a non-taxable use and is indelibly dyed pursuant
to Treasury Department regulations. A similar dyeing regime
exists for diesel fuel under the Clean Air Act, but the State
of Alaska is partially exempt from the dyeing regime of the
Clean Air Act. The BBA provision would exempt diesel fuel
sold in the State of Alaska from the excise tax dyeing
requirement during the period when that State is exempt from
the Clean Air Act dyeing requirement.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any
of the stated exceptions. The provision does not treat all
persons engaged in the same activity the same way, because
persons removing diesel fuel from terminals in Alaska would
be treated differently than those removing diesel fuel from
terminals in other areas of the United States.

5. Common investment fund for private foundations (sec. 11276)

The BBA provision would grant tax-exempt status to any
cooperative service organization comprised solely of members
that are tax-exempt private foundations and community
foundations, if the organization meets certain requirements
and is organized and operated solely to hold, commingle, and
collectively invest and reinvest funds contributed by the
members in stocks and securities, and to collect income from
such investments and turn over such income, less expenses, to
the members.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any
of the stated exceptions. The provision does not treat all
persons engaged in the same activity the same way, because
mutual funds that are engaged in the same type of activity,
i.e., collectively investing funds in stocks and securities,
would not receive the benefit of the provision.

6. Transition relief from repeal of section 936 credit (sec. 11305)

Under present law, certain domestic corporations with
business operations in the U.S. possessions may elect the
section 936 credit which significantly reduces the U.S. tax
on certain income related to their operations in the
possessions. The BBA generally would repeal section 936 for
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995. However,
transition rules would be provided under which
corporations that are existing claimants under section 936
would be eligible to claim credits for a transition
period. One of these transition rules would allow a
corporation that is an existing claimant with respect to
operations in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands to continue to determine its
section 936 credit with respect to its operations in such
possessions under present law for its taxable years
beginning before January 1, 2006.
This transition rule for corporations operating in Guam,
American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it is expected
to provide transitional relief from a change to the Internal
Revenue Code to 10 or fewer beneficiaries in at least one
fiscal year in which the provision would be in effect, and it
does not meet the binding contract exception.

7. Modification to excise tax on ozone-depleting chemicals (sec. 11332)

Under present law, an excise tax is imposed on the sale or
use by the manufacturer or importer of certain ozone-
depleting chemicals. Taxable chemicals that are recovered and
recycled within the United States are exempt from tax. The
BBA provision would extend the exemption to imported recycled
halons.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
importers in at least one fiscal year in which the provision
would be in effect, and it does not fall within any of the
stated exceptions. Although anyone who imports recycled
halons would receive the same treatment under the provision,
others engaged in the manufacture or import of ozone-
depleting chemicals would not qualify for the exemption.

8. Modification to tax-exempt bond penalties for local furnishers of
electricity and gas (sec. 11333)

Under present law, tax-exempt bonds may be issued to
benefit private businesses engaged in the furnishing of
electric energy or gas if the business's service area does
not exceed either two contiguous counties or a city and one
contiguous county. If, after such bonds are issued, the
service area is expanded beyond the permitted geographic
area, interest on the bonds becomes taxable, and interest
paid by the private parties on bond-financed loans becomes
nondeductible. The BBA provision would allow private
businesses engaged in the local furnishing of electricity or
gas to expand their service areas beyond the geographic
bounds allowed under present law without penalty under
certain specified circumstances.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any
of the stated exceptions. All persons engaged in the activity
of generating electricity or gas would not be treated the
same.

9. Tax-exempt bonds for sale of Alaska Power Administration Facility
(sec. 11334)

Under present law, tax-exempt bonds may be issued for the
benefit of certain private electric utilities. If the bonds
are used to finance acquisition of existing property by these
utilities, a minimum amount of rehabilitation must be
performed on the property as a condition of receiving the
tax-exempt bond financing. The BBA provision would waive the
rehabilitation requirement in the case of bonds to be issued
as part of the sale of the Snettisham facility by the Alaska
Power Administration.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit only one issuer of
tax-exempt bonds, and it does not fall within any of the
stated exceptions. No other issuers of tax-exempt bonds would
benefit from the provision.

10. Transitional rule under section 2056A (sec. 11614)

Under present law, a marital deduction generally is allowed
for estate and gift tax purposes for the value of property
passing to a spouse. The marital deduction is not available
for property passing to a non-U.S.-citizen spouse outside a
qualified domestic trust

[[Page H3012]]

(``QDT''). The requirements for a qualified domestic trust
were modified in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 (``OBRA 1990''). The BBA provision would allow trusts
created before the enactment of OBRA 1990 to qualify as QDTs
if they satisfy the requirements that were in effect before
the enactment of OBRA 1990.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any
of the stated exceptions. The provision would benefit a
closed group of taxpayers. Trusts created before the
enactment of OBRA 1990 would be treated differently than
trusts created after the enactment of OBRA 1990.

11. Organizations subject to section 833 (sec. 11703)

Present-law section 833 (created in the Tax Reform Act of
1986) provides special tax benefits to Blue Cross or Blue
Shield organizations existing on August 16, 1986, which have
not experienced a material change in structure or operations
since that date. The BBA provision would extend this special
rule to other similarly-structured organizations that were in
existence on August 16, 1986, and have not materially changed
in structure or operations since that date.
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect, and all persons engaged in the
same activity would not be entitled to take the benefit. The
benefit would be available only to a closed group of
taxpayers that were in existence in 1986, and would not be
available to any newly formed entities.

Examples of ``Limited Tax Benefits'' from Other Statutes

1. The original income tax, as enacted in 1913, exempted the sitting
President

The 1913 Act imposing the first income tax provided an
exemption for the sitting President of the United States for
the remainder of his term. If the Line Item Veto Act had been
applicable at the time, the President would have had the
option of canceling this ``limited tax benefit.''

2. Financial institution transition rule to interest allocation rules

A provision in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the rules
relating to how multinational corporations allocate interest
expense for foreign tax credit purposes. The provision
included a favorable rule for banks, and also included a
special exception allowing ``certain'' nonbanks to use the
favorable bank rule. The special exception applied to any
corporation if ``(A) such corporation is a Delaware
corporation incorporated on August 20, 1959, and (B) such
corporation was primarily engaged in the financing of dealer
inventory or consumer purchases on May 29, 1985, and at all
times thereafter before the close of the taxable year.'' P.L.
99-514, 100 Stat. 2548, sec. 1215(c)(5).
This transition rule would have been a ``limited tax
benefit'' if it were expected to provide transitional relief
from a change to the Internal Revenue Code to 10 or fewer
beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect. (In retrospect, it is believed
that 10 or fewer beneficiaries actually received the benefit
of this provision.)

3. Community development corporations

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included a
provision that created an income tax credit for entities that
make qualified cash contributions to one of 20 ``community
development corporations'' (``CDCs'') to be selected by the
Secretary of HUD using certain selection criteria. Each CDC
could designate which contributions (up to $2 million per
CDC) would be eligible for the credit.
This provision would have constituted a ``limited tax
benefit'' if it were expected to provide a benefit to 100 or
fewer contributors in at least one fiscal year in which the
provision would be in effect. (In retrospect, it is believed
that 100 or fewer contributors received the benefit of this
provision.) All persons who engage in the activity of making
contributions to CDCs are not treated the same, and the
difference is not based upon size, filing status, or any of
the other enumerated factors.

4. Exemptions from cutbacks in meal and entertainment expense
deductions

Prior to 1986, a 100-percent deduction was provided for
certain meal and entertainment expenses. In 1986, the
deduction was reduced to an 80-percent deduction. In 1993,
the deduction was again reduced, to a 50-percent deduction.
In both 1986 and 1993, an exemption was provided for food
and beverages provided on an offshore oil or gas platform
or drilling rig. A separate exemption was provided for
support camps in proximity to and integral to such a
platform or rig, if the platform or rig is located in the
United States north of 54 degrees north latitude (i.e., in
Alaska).
These exemptions both would have been ``limited tax
benefits'' in 1986 if they had been expected to provide
transitional relief from a change to the Internal Revenue
Code to 10 or fewer beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year
in which the provision would be in effect.

5. Transition relief from private activity bond requirements

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 created a new
category of private activity bond for bonds issued by a
governmental unit to acquire certain nongovernmental output
property, e.g., electrical generation facilities. Such bonds
generally are subject to a State's annual private activity
volume limitation. However, specific transition relief was
provided for ``bonds issued--(A) after October 13, 1987, by
an authority created by a statute--(i) approved by the State
Governor on July 24, 1986 and (ii) sections 1 through 10 of
which became effective on January 15, 1987, and (B) to
provide facilities serving the area specified in such statute
on the date of its enactment.''
This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it
loses revenue, it is expected to benefit only on issuer of
tax-exempt bonds, and it does not fall within any of the
stated exceptions. No other issuers of tax-exempt bonds would
benefit from the provision.

6. Various Tax Reform Act of 1986 provisions

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 contains a number of provisions
that are clearly targeted to only one taxpayer (in some
cases, even referring to the taxpayer by name). For example:
``* * * indebtedness (which was outstanding on May 29,
1985) of a corporation incorporated on June 13, 1917, which
has its principal place of business in Bartlesville,
Oklahoma.'' (sec. 1215(c)(2)(D))
``In the case of an affiliated group of domestic
corporations the common parent of which has its principal
office in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and has a certificate of
organization which was filed with the Secretary of the State
of New Jersey on November 10, 1887 * * *'' (sec.
1215(c)(6)(A))
A facility if ``(i) such facility is to be used by both a
National Hockey League team and a National Basketball
Association team, (ii) such facility is to be constructed on
a platform using air rights over land acquired by a State
authority and identified as site B in a report dated May 30,
1984, prepared for a State urban development corporation, and
(iii) such facility is eligible for real property tax (and
power and energy) benefits pursuant to State legislation
approved and effective as of July 7, 1982.'' (sec.
1317(3)(S))
``A project is described in this subparagraph if such
project is consistent with an urban renewal plan adopted or
ordered prepared before August 28, 1986, by the city council
of the most populous city in a state which entered the Union
on February 14, 1859.'' (sec. 1317(6)(U))
A facility if ``(i) such facility is to be used for an
annual civic festival, (ii) a referendum was held in the
spring of 1985 in which voters permitted the city council to
lease 130 acres of dedicated parkland to such festival, and
(iii) the city council passed an inducement resolution on
June 19, 1986.'' (sec. 1317(7)(J))
A residential rental property if ``(i) it is a new
residential development with approximately 98 dwelling units
located in census tract No. 4701, and (ii) there was an
inducement ordinance for such project adopted by a city
council on August 14, 1984.'' (sec. 1317(13)(M))
``A facility is described in this subparagraph if it
consists of the rehabilitation of the Andover Town Hall in
Andover, Massachusetts.'' (sec. 1317(27)(I))
Proceeds of an issue if ``(i) such issue is issued on
behalf of a university established by Charter granted by King
George II of England on October 31, 1754, to accomplish a
refunding (including an advance refunding) of bonds issued to
finance 1 or more projects, and (ii) the application or other
request for the issuance of the issue to the appropriate
State issuer was made by or on behalf of such university
before February 26, 1986.'' (sec. 1317(33)(C))
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Armey] is recognized for 12 minutes.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, when we wrote the Contract With America, we promised the
American people a new deal, a change, a real change which would be
meaningful in their real lives. We promised innovation and
responsiveness.
Today we bring forward the Contract With America Advancement Act, and
it includes the line-item veto. The line-item veto is something the
American people have called for for years. The chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], who first came to
Congress with Richard Nixon was in the White House, introduced the
line-item veto at that time.
Through the end of the Nixon Presidency and through the Ford
Presidency, through the Carter Presidency, the Reagan Presidency, the
Bush Presidency, and thus far through the Clinton Presidency, the
chairman has fought for a line-item veto, and through all that time the
other party, while in the majority, were unwilling to give this
authority to the President

[[Page H3013]]

of the United States. They were unwilling to give this authority to any
President, Republican or Democrat, because they claimed it for
themselves, in defiance of the will of the American people. Today we
will pass it, Mr. Speaker.
We promised and we are delivering today, regulatory reform to give
relief to the small business men and women of this country who create
the majority of our new good jobs. Again, we are trying to roll back
the regulatory steamroller that has been running over small business in
America and has been the hallmark of initiatives of the past Democrat
majorities.
In this landmark piece of legislation, we are increasing the
limitation on earnings available to our senior citizens before they see
a reduction of their Social Security benefits, benefits that were
bought and paid for with after-tax dollars throughout all their working
years, a simple justice for senior Americans, denied to them for all
these years by the Democrat majorities in the past.
They say we are late in getting this done. In the first few months of
the second session of our first term in the majority in 40 years, they
say we are late in getting done what it is they never would or never
could even try to do. We will stand on our promptness. These contract
items that will go forward today, I expect the President will sign.
Unhappily, he has vetoed others.

The President has already vetoed lower taxes for the working men and
women of this country. Welfare reform, much needed and much called for
by the people of this country, the President has vetoed twice. A
balanced budget the President has vetoed; significant spending
reductions and reform, the President has vetoed. The President has not
been an agent of change for the American people, Mr. Speaker. The
President has been a veto for the status quo.
When the President vetoed these bills, he shut down the Government,
and yes, he won a short-term public relations battle. Many were
counting us out in our new majority by the end of last year, but we
came back in March, and we are back. We have just completed the most
productive month of this Congress. During this month of March we have
passed a farm bill that is truly revolutionary, taking agriculture in a
new direction of freedom for all Americans.
As I have observed the move of farm policy in the past, I have found
myself observing that when the American farmers bit on it and joined a
partnership with the Federal Government, they became the junior
partners, not free on their own land. We are fixing that this month.
We are passing this month a job that we began in 1990, that we had
prepared in 1991, that was disallowed to come to this floor by the
Democrat majority in 1991, that would move health legislation to end
job lock, and would make insurance more affordable for all Americans.
That will be done before we leave this week.
We will pass this week product liability reforms. The gentleman from
Illinois, Henry Hyde, our distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, sat on that committee for 22 years, 22 years of time
when the American people cried for relief from the product liability
laws that were choking off job creation in America, and the gentleman
from Illinois never got to see even a single hearing on the subject
under Democrat chairmen. We will pass that on to the President this
week. He says he will veto it on behalf of the trial lawyers.
We have passed already in March the most effective death penalty
ever. We have passed an immigration reform that, one, protects our
borders; and two, reflects the true openness and compassion to lovers
of freedom that this country has demonstrated through its foundation
and through its entire history.
Today in Roll Call, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was called landmark
and nontraditional. It is landmark and it is nontraditional,
nontraditional in the sense that for the past 40 years we had a do-
nothing majority that only chose to build on the status quo, never
chose to dare to take a chance on freedom, never chose to dare to
innovate, never chose to keep faith and be responsive to the demands of
the American people.
We are doing that today, and we will do that through the rest of this
term, and we will do that in the next Congress, because, Mr. Speaker,
the American people deserve a Congress that has the ability to know
their goodness and the decency to respect it. That is what they will
have.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when every
Member should be mindful of the undertaking that we make at the
beginning of every Congress to protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States, because adopting the line-item veto provision in
this proposed bill would run absolutely counter to that obligation. The
first words of Article I, sec. 1 of the Constitution are, ``All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States.'' Later in Article I, sec. 7 dealing with the
President's responsibility with regard to legislation, the Constitution
states as follows: ``If he approve, he shall sign it,''--the bill--
``but, if not, he shall return it with his objections.''
Those are the basic parameters of the legislative responsibilities
that we have under the Constitution and that the President has under
the Constitution, and it is not in our power to change them. It is our
responsibility in fact to respect and preserve them.
While our friends across the ocean in Britain are having second
thoughts these days about their monarchy, this line-item veto provision
will effectively start the accretion of monarchical power in the
American presidency. The Founders would surely be appalled.
Incredibly, under this proposal, after an appropriations bill has
been passed by the Congress and signed it into law, the President can
repeal, the authors of this bill say ``cancel,'' those parts of that
law he opposes by the mere act of writing them down on paper and
sending the list to Congress. This ``repeal'' power may be suitable for
Royalty but it is an unconstitutional insult to the principle of
representative democracy.
Recall those grand words of the Declaration of Independence in which
we protested the usurpation of power by King George, and mark my words,
we will live to regret the usurpation of power that we invite on the
part of future Presidents of the United States if this provision
becomes law.
Thank God the courts stand ready to do the right thing and to find
this provision, as it is, contrary to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken to this issue most recently and on point
in the Chadha case, there making it absolutely clear that the powers of
neither branch with respect to the division of responsibility on
legislation can be legislatively eroded.
What is even more bizarre in this particular proposal is the
provision for the 5 day cancellation period. Now think about that. This
is a metaphysical leap of Herculean proportions.
The enactment provisions of the Constitution say that once the
President signs a bill, it shall be law. We propose that he then has a
5 day cancellation right, after signing a bill? That is absolutely
absurd. This defies any logical reading of the clear meaning to the
provisions of the Constitution that delineate the roles and powers of
Congress and the President with respect to legislation.
But beyond the constitutional arguments, this proposal is
fundamentally unwise. And, sadly, it manifests a shameful disrespect by
us of our own responsibilities and the Constitution.
On the large issues, let us think back to what would have happened
during the Reagan administration, with a President who, for his own
reasons, sent budgets to this body zeroing most categories of education
funding in the Federal budget. Presumably, if that President had this
power, it would be exercised to eliminate most education funding by the
United States Government, and 34 Senators representing 9 percent of the
people of this country, in league with the President, could have
brought about the outcome.

The invitation to usurpation that lies in this language is even more
pernicious and can also be understood by going back to the late
eighties, when we were still debating whether we would continue aid to
the Contras. Now, let's say I happened to have been fortunate enough to
have gotten a provision in an appropriations bill for a needed post
office or a needed courthouse in my district, and the bill was down at
the White House awaiting signature at the same time we were debating
aid to the Contras. I would guarantee you I would have gotten a call
from someone at the White House saying ``Congressman, I notice you had
some success in dealing with this need in your district. We are pleased
at that, but we need your support on aid to the Contras.'' The not so
subtle message: your vote on what we want, or you lose the post office.
That is the kind of extortionate excess of power that we are inviting
future presidents to apply.
Pick your issue. That is one that comes to my mind.
It is clear that the Governors of the several States who have this
power use it in exactly

[[Page H3014]]

this way, to get their version of spending adopted. As one former
Governor recently stated, the real use of the line-item veto power he
had as Governor was not to control a bloated budget but to persuade
legislators to change their votes on important issues. Ironically, this
may actually result in more spending; in most cases, certainly no
reduction.
Last year, the majority in this body rejected the expedited
rescissions proposal that represented a constitutionally acceptable
approach to this issue, requiring each Member of Congress to be
accountable with a specific vote on any items a President might find
objectionable enough to rescind. Without that mechanism for requiring
congressional reconsideration, the line-item veto proposal before us is
clearly unconstitutional.
The language in the Constitution clearly gives Congress the
responsibility for crafting legislation, while the President is limited
to simple approval or disapproval of bills presented to him. Article I,
section 7 refers to the President returning a bill, not pieces of a
bill. Yes, the Constitution allows the President to state his
objections to a bill upon returning it, but the objections merely serve
as guidelines for Congress should it choose to redraft the legislation.
We have no legitimate power to pass a statute to the contrary. The
Constitution does not allow the President to repeal a provision of law
by striking a spending level approved by Congress. We have no
legitimate power to pass a statute to the contrary.
As the Supreme Court noted in its decision I.N.S. versus Chadha,
``Explicit and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution prescribe and
define the respective functions of the Congress and of the Executive in
the legislative process.''
The Court continues, ``These provisions of Article 1 are integral
parts of the constitutional design for the separation of powers.'' The
line-item veto proposal in the bill before us would impermissibly alter
the ``constitutional design for the separation of powers'' between the
executive and legislative branches by allowing the President
singlehandedly to repeal or amend legislation which Congress has
approved, and the President has already signed into law.
The Framers were deliberate and precise in dividing legislative
powers. In the Federalist papers, Hamilton and Madison both expressed
the view that the legislature would be the most powerful branch of
government. Thus, they also recognized the need for some checks on its
powers. So, the Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature, with
each body elected under different terms and districts. And it affords
the President a veto power. Other constraints are also imposed, such as
requirements for origination of certain legislation in the House.

The President's veto power, as a check on Congress, was recognized to
be a blunt instrument. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 73, the
Framers acknowledged that with the veto power ``the power of preventing
bad laws includes that of preventing good ones.'' It was their sense,
however, that ``the negative would be employed with great caution.''
The line-item veto being considered today, by providing the President
with the authority to repeal or ``cancel'' appropriations and some tax
laws, turns the framework defined in article I, section 7 on its head.
What the President might decide to ``cancel'' under this provision is
simply repealed, unless the Congress goes through an entire repetition
of the article I legislative process, including a two-thirds vote of
both houses. This would allow the President and a minority in only one
house of Congress to frustrate the will of the majority--an outcome
that flies in the face of the constitutional principle of majority
rule.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must comment on a very deceptive provision of
this line-item veto bill. The authors of the bill claim it doesn't
focus unfairly on appropriations bills--which traditionally include
funding for education, environmental, health, and other governmental
programs--because it also includes tax provisions among the items the
President can ``cancel.''
But, the only tax provisions that can be cancelled are ``limited tax
benefits,'' defined as revenue-losing provisions that provide a benefit
to ``100 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.'' A tax break for a particular industry that takes millions of
dollars out of the Federal treasury can't be cancelled by the
President. And even a so-called limited tax break can be easily
finessed--that is, immunized from veto--if the conference report merely
fails to identify it as such.
Why? I think the answer is obvious. Many members of the majority
party are fond of handing out tax breaks to their friends in particular
industries. So, under this bill, a member who wants to include funding
in an appropriations bill for a national park in her Congressional
District must worry about the President cancelling a benefit to her
District, but a member who wants to provide funding to his favorite
industry or business by including a tax break in a larger tax bill
doesn't need to be concerned.
Mr. Chairman, this proposal goes too far in fuzzing the separation of
powers set forth in the Constitution. It subjects members of Congress
to a new, extreme form of executive branch pressure. It unfairly
targets appropriation expenditures while ignoring most tax
expenditures. I urge my colleagues to reject it before it is rejected
by the courts. Regrettably, this provision so taints this entire bill,
otherwise needed to extend the debt limit, that the bill itself should
be defeated.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation to
raise the debt ceiling because I do not believe we can allow our
Government to go into default. To do otherwise would wreak havoc on our
Nation's good standing and would result in Social Security and Veterans
benefits from being sent out.
It is difficult to take this action but I can tell you that because
of this Congress' vigilance we have already saved approximately $23
billion in spending over the past year. This is a very good start on
the road to achieving a balanced budget.
There are two provisions in particular that are included in this
measure that allow me to vote in favor of H.R. 3136.
We provide the means to give the President the line-item veto.
President Reagan asked Congress over and over again--``Give me the
line-item veto.'' If only Congress had given him this mechanism for
fiscal discipline, we wouldn't have these huge debts which, if not
reduced, threaten to crush the next generation with huge taxes and a
diminished quality of life.
Today we have been given a rare opportunity to enact legislation that
will accomplish this.
My other chief reason for voting for this bill is that it contains an
increase in the earnings limit for those age 65 to 69 to $30,000 by the
year 2002. Currently, a working senior who reaches $11,280 in earned
income loses $1 in Social Security for each $3 earned thereafter.
That's a marginal tax rate of 33 percent. That's a high price for
merely wanting to work.
The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats Social Security benefits
less like a pension and more like welfare. It represents a Social
Security bias in favor of unearned income over earned income.
It is effectively a mandatory retirement mechanism our country no
longer accepts or needs. It precludes greater flexibility for the
elderly worker and also prevents America's full use of eager,
experienced and educated elderly workers. Finally, it deprives the U.S.
economy of the additional income tax which would be generated by the
elderly workers.
Let's pass this bill today so that we can get America back on the
right track.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support this measure, H.R.
3136, the debt limit package. First, we need to honor the debt which
our Nation has incurred. The U.S. credit rating must not be in
question, nor should the risk of default. For over 200 years through
civil and world wars, recession and depression, the United States has
honored our debt.
Certainly it is deplorable that the total U.S. debt has grown so
dramatically in the past decades, but the 1993 Clinton budget measure
passed by Congress has had a dramatic and positive impact. The deficit
of 1996 is half of the 1993 projected 1996 deficit, lowering the amount
of deficit by $150 billion this 1996 fiscal year, and at the same time
our Nation's economy has performed positively, inflation is in check,
unemployment remains low and productivity growth, G.D.P., and business
profitability are strong.
This debt ceiling will act to accommodate the Federal budget needs
until late 1997. It is past time to take this off the Republican
political agenda. The threat of default and intimidation won't work, to
sell GOP budget programs that lack merit.
Included in this package of legislative measures is a
constitutionally questionable line item veto power for the President.
President Clinton, of course, wants this power, but this sloppy
rearrangement of the fundamental separation of powers proviso won't
pass muster. Furthermore, the line item veto power in this promises
much but delivers little. First, it doesn't apply to authorization and
appropriation riders.
Therefore, the environmental riders so controversial this fiscal year
would be beyond the line item veto reach of this measure. Second, it
only applies to categories of spending, making it impossible to single
out the specific bad apple in the basket. Finally it doesn't apply to
bad tax policy, only specific narrow tax provisions of specific small
groups as certified by the Joint Tax Committee.
Yet another dubious congressional limit in the constitutional
separation of powers and unique congressional authority which cannot be
delegated to the nonelected apparently is the rush to give away
congressional powers held by the previous Democratic Congress. The
Republicans have today sold symbolism,

[[Page H3015]]

not substance, to the Executive Office, and they bought it. To add
further limits, the measure has a short life--1997 to 2005. This line
item veto is weak, not likely to be effective and will be rendered
inoperable by the courts and/or its limited scope.
Everyone can record it on their political campaign literature as an
accomplishment, that's probably its best use; other issues added to the
debt ceiling measure apparently are popular and the further price of
the 2-year debt ceiling which the President agreed to. I'm concerned
that the expanded Social Security earning limit, the retirement test
ceiling may undermine support for the Social Security Retirement
System. The basic predicate of Social Security retirement is that the
beneficiary is no longer working. This means a job and slot is
available to a less senior worker.
For many, this elevated ceiling means they will receive Social
Security retirement benefits but remain on the same job, in essence
claiming a retirement income and the wages of a worker. The idea
regarding the Social Security retirement is that workers are not able
to continue working and that the Social Security income provides for
that person and family during that phase of one's life. At least this
measure maintains a ceiling and earlier versions lifted it even
further.
The income group that benefits from this provision is healthy and
generally better off financially. It would be regrettable if the upshot
of this policy change would undermine Social Security retirement for
those unable to work.
Finally, this overall bill contains some regulatory relief for
smaller enterprises. Candidly, I've had serious reservations about the
broad ranging measures that try to pass as regulatory relief. Too many
have been put forth and passed by the 104th Congress whose intent was
to render inoperable important health, safety, and environmental laws.
Rules and regulations are the wheels which carry laws into
implementation. Usually the Administrative Procedures Act [APA]
provides sufficient assurance of participation and monitoring of the
executive department or agency rule and regulatory process. The
features of this provision seems reasonable--ironically expanding the
potential for lawsuits and litigation--after the Republican majority in
this House and Congress have beat the drum and attempted to enact ill
considered punitive measures on the legal process and limiting the
peoples right to seek redress.
Mr. Speaker, legislation is the art of compromise and as we can note
from this document a big dose of symbolism. I'm voting for this measure
with little enthusiasm, but with a pragmatic eye.
The Republicans have finally arrived at a point of talking with a
Democratic President and have convinced themselves to move forward on
the debt ceiling, the main vehicle and single most important engine
which necessitates this legislation before the House.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the regulatory reform
provisions of the bill for the following reasons.
On process: This bill has never been considered by the Judiciary
Committee or by any other committee in the House. It's stealth
process--we only saw the final draft late last night--continues the
Republican record of disdain for the committees and for proper
democratic process. This bill was created by a secret process in the
House, and will allow special interests to secretly influence
regulations in the executive branch.
The secret influences of the few: Under the bill, so-called
Regulatory Fairness Boards and Advocacy Panels are to be established to
directly influence the content of regulations and the nature of
regulatory enforcement. These boards are to be made up solely of a few
favored small businesses, and can include exclusively campaign
contributors.
Ex parte contacts in reg writing: The boards and advocacy panels will
provide an avenue for private ex parte contacts with the agencies and
the OIRA administrator to influence regulations and enforcement--a
departure from the commonly accepted principle that the regulation
writing process should be open and on the record. They provide an ex
parte and secret forum for these favored businesses to complain about
how statutorily mandated regulations are written and enforced.
Yet another attack on the environment: While we all support the
concept of regulatory flexibility--that is helping small businesses
comply with a vast array of Federal regulations--this bill takes the
concept to the extreme. For it allows the waiver of some of our most
important environmental penalties relating to safe drinking water and
clean air. If, for example, it happens to be a small business that is
operating a chemical manufacturing operation or a small business that
is a water supplier, laws protecting citizens from drinking water
hazards like cryptosporidium or other chemical contamination could
simply be waived (section 323). Our environmental safety and health is
at risk from these hazards regardless of the source of the hazards.
Still more litigation for the lawyers: Section 611 allows for
environmental regulations that protect our air, water, food, and
workplaces to be suspended or even overturned by the courts if these
and other ill-defined provisions are not strictly adhered to. This
judicial review is different from what the House has voted on in the
past--for past regulatory flexibility bills that we've voted on allow
for judicial review of the reg flex analysis only. This bill, however,
could put hundreds of environmental rules at risk, and subject them to
endless litigation in the courts for merely procedural reasons that are
only marginally related to the fundamental issues surrounding the
promulgation of the rule.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill. It
contains measures which I strongly support. Most importantly, raising
the debt ceiling is absolutely essential to ensuring the continued full
faith and credit of the United States. Without passage of this bill,
the economic security of our country would be gravely imperiled. The
legislation also contains provisions to relieve the regulatory burden
on our Nation's small businesses and a measure, which I strongly
support, to increase the earnings limit for Social Security recipients.
This measure also contains a line-item veto provision about which I
have very serious concerns. First, this conference report grants to the
President the significant power to item veto new entitlement spending.
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and food stamps help
out most vulnerable citizens, the elderly, and infirm. The original
House bill, and the Republican's own contract on America, did not grant
this authority.
The line-item veto provision before us today also would not become
effective until January 1, 1997. This timing conveniently exempts the
fiscal year 1997 appropriations cycle from Presidential line-item
vetoes. Cynics might conclude that the Republican majority wants one
last chance to tuck the pet projects into this year's appropriations
bills.
Finally and most egregiously Mr. Chairman, this line-item veto
measure takes a loophole included in the House-passed bill and expanded
it into a black hole for special interests. The House bill included a
provision on allowing the President to item veto targeted tax breaks.
Unfortunately, the majority breached its own contract in defining that
term very narrowly to mean only those tax give-aways that affect 100 or
fewer people. This artificial number can easily be fudged by a smart
tax lawyer--you simply have to help out 101 or 102 people.
This conference report includes this loophole and expands it into a
black hole for special interests by allowing the President to item veto
only those targeted tax benefits identified by the Joint Committee on
Taxation, a committee controlled by the tax writing committees of
Congress. So if they say it isn't a special interest tax break, the
President can never veto it. Mr. Chairman, this is a sham.
The Republican Party was committed to the much broader definition
right up to the moment they gained the majority, then they had a sudden
change of heart. With this bill the Republicans claim they will end
special interest tax breaks, but if you read the fine print you'll see
they expect nothing of the kind.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3136,
the Contract With America Advancement Act.
This Member is particularly pleased that, as reported on the House
floor H.R. 3136 included the Line-Item Veto Act. An important tool in
the battle to reduce spending would be to give the President line-item
veto authority.
A line-item veto would enable the President to veto individual items
in an appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill. With a line-
item veto the executive could strike a pen to the pork-barrel projects
that too often find their way into appropriations bills.
This power is currently given to 43 of the Nation's Governors, where
it has been a successful tool that discourages unnecessary expenditures
at the State level. It is appropriate that the President have this
authority as well.
This Member has cosponsored legislation to institute a line-item veto
since 1985, and is pleased that this initiative may soon be enacted
into law. Legislation to provide for a line-item veto has been
introduced in Congress for over 100 years. The time has come to
recognize the need for more stringent and binding budget mechanisms.
This Member is also pleased that H.R. 3136 raises the limit on income
senior citizens may earn and still receive full Social Security
benefits. In the last three Congresses, this Member cosponsored related
legislation, and has consistently supported efforts to reduce or
eliminate the Social Security earnings limit on senior citizens who
must work to make ends meet. Seniors of modest means who have to work
to supplement their Social Security checks should be allowed to work
without paying an effective marginal tax rate higher than that of
millionaires.
In addition, this legislation also includes much-needed regulatory
relief provisions that

[[Page H3016]]

would inject some common sense into the current regulatory and
bureaucratic framework which now exists.
Federal regulations cost the economy hundred so billions of dollars
each year. Too often, these regulations were not based on sound science
and resulted in little or no benefit to society. This is an issue which
must be addressed to provide relief from the plethora of Federal
regulations.
This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3136 as reported to
the House floor, in order to advance important initiatives to establish
a line-item veto, provide regulatory relief, and limit an unfair tax on
senior citizens.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act, a
measure to provide for a line-item veto, for Social Security benefits
relief for our senior citizens and for small business regulatory
reform.
Mr. Speaker, during my tenure in the Congress, I have been a solid
and steady advocate of a platform that recognizes we need to bring real
change to this Federal Government of ours. For example, during my
freshman and sophomore years, I had sponsored legislation providing for
the implementation of a Presidential line-item veto to end the days
where the legislatively-spawned Government pork and largesse would
cause our deficit to grow like an unkempt bush in one's front yard and
the President would not have the hedge clippers to trim it.
However, during those two Congresses, I and other fervent supporters
of the line-item veto had been frustrated and thwarted by the then-
Democratic majority. The Democrats would say that a line-item veto
would render Congress impotent or that Congress does not need to use
such a draconian measure as a line-item veto and that we can solve our
Nation's fiscal problems by just saying no to pork. Mr. Speaker, I did
not accept the Democrats' empty assurances about spending then, and my
instincts were proved current when that supposed discipline was nowhere
to be found.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, times have changed. With the passage of H.R.
3136, the President of the United States, be he Republican or Democrat,
will be able to eliminate specific spending and target tax provision in
legislation passed by the Congress. This is important, for now the
President will have the ability to veto out pork barrel spending in a
bill which he may view in an otherwise favorable light. Mr. Speaker,
this is a mechanism that 43 of our Governors now possess, and we should
extend it to the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take note of other provisions in H.R.
3136 that I support. I feel that the bill's provisions which raise the
limit of income senior citizens may earn while still receiving full
Social Security benefits would be beneficial to those concerned.
Presently, senior citizens between the ages of 65 and 69 lose $1 in
Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above $11,520 while the
earnings test amounts to an additional 33 percent marginal tax rate on
top of existing income taxes. Because of this, seniors who want to work
past the age 64 would not have the ability to remain productive, and
thus, they are unfairly treated. H.R. 3136 would gradually raise the
earnings limit for seniors between the ages of 65 and 90 from the
current level of $11,520 to $30,000 by the year 2002.
I have spoken with many seniors around my district, and they, Mr.
Speaker, have indicated to me that this measure sounds like a pretty
good idea. Many of the seniors in my district still want to work full
time or part time. They want to be productive members of society and by
raising the limit on income, they can achieve this desired lifestyle.
We should definitely support this initiative.
Finally, I rise in full support of the measures in H.R. 3136 which
would provide regulatory relief to our Nation's small businesses.
Presently, Federal regulations cost our Nation's small businesses an
astronomical $430 billion per year while spending a ludicrous 1.9
billions hours per year completing Federal regulatory forms.
Included in these relief provisions are reforms providing for
regulatory compliance simplification, regulatory flexibility,
procedures for Congress to disapprove new regulations, and small
business legal fees associated with fighting excessive proposed
penalties.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the true lifeblood of our Nation's
economy. By helping our small businesses by providing regulatory
fairness, we will truly help our workers, our families, our towns and
our cities.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3136, and I urge my colleagues to do
likewise when it comes time to vote.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about
H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act. I will vote for
this bill because it raises the debt limit, however, I must state that
I would have preferred a clean debt limit bill. I support the increase
in the earnings limit for social security beneficiaries, however, I
would like to have had more debate about the small business regulatory
flexibility provisions.
I am a strong supporter of small business, which is the foundation of
America's economic base. I support regulatory flexibility for small
business and having clear guidelines so that small businesses can more
easily comply with Government standards. However, I have concerns about
bogging down Government agencies in frivolous lawsuits that would draw
their attention away from maintaining Government standards for the
environment and ensuring workplace safety.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to discuss this bill in the context of
the current ongoing budget debate, and I would urge that we as a body
do more for the American people than pass a debt limit increase.
Although we will be discussing other important issues the Health
Coverage Availability Act, I would like to remind this House of the
glaring fact that we do not yet have a balanced budget for the United
States, when this fiscal year is half over, and we have not provided
funding for all of the Government agencies that serve the American
public. This outrageous fact is not forgotten by the American people,
and I would urge the leadership on both sides to not forget their duty
to the citizens of this country.
The summer is fast approaching and teens that participate in the
Summer Jobs Program are wondering if the budget will leave their
program intact, or if it will be eliminated. Students and families
across the country are wondering what is going on in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this debt limit increase bill, but I
would urge my colleagues to remember that we are not finished with the
budget and that the American people are watching and that they know
what the real issues are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. EWING of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation which contains judicial review of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act [RFA].
This is an issue which I have been heavily involved in for nearly 5
years, when I was first elected to Congress in 1991. At that time, one
of the top concerns I heard about from my constituents was the burden
of excessive Federal regulations. Small businesses in particular felt
that the money and time they spent complying with rules and regulations
handed down from the Federal Government were crippling their ability to
complete and invest in productive activity. In the 4\1/2\ years since I
was elected, these concerns have only increased.
When I was elected, I looked for ways to reduce unnecessary
regulation. I found that way back in 1980 Congress passed, and
President Carter signed into law, the RFA. Simply put, the RFA required
Federal regulators to conduct an analysis of the impact of any proposed
new regulation could have on small businesses and small governmental
entities. The RFA required the regulators to seek corrective ways to
minimize the impact of those proposed rules before they are finalized.
Despite the good intentions of the RFA, the act has been almost
totally ignored by Federal regulators for the 16 years its has been on
the books. When I looked further into this issue, I found that Federal
agencies were routinely using a loophole in the law which allows then
to publish a statement in the Federal Register certifying that their
regulation does not affect a significant number of small entities, and
therefore allowing the agency to avoid conducing the analyses required
by the RFA. In fact, I found that RFA analyses are rarely conducted,
even when a regulation clearly would have a major impact on the small
entities being regulated.
Herein lies the achilles heel of the RFA. When an agency certifies
that a regulation will not significantly affect small entities, that
certification cannot be challenged in court. A small business owner is
prohibited from asking the courts to review whether the Federal agency
has complied with the RFA. It is because the agencies know their
decision to ignore the RFA cannot be challenged that they almost always
do ignore the act. This fact has been confirmed to me as I have met
with dozens of small business organizations and hundreds of small
business owners over the past 4 years to discuss this issue. A number
of hearings have been held in both the Small Business Committee and the
Judiciary Committee and scores of witnesses have convinced me and many
others in Congress that without judicial review, the Federal regulators
will continue to ignore the RFA.
Many of us talk about reducing the cost which Government regulations
impost on the American economy, but with passage of this

[[Page H3017]]

legislation this Congress is actually doing something about it. We are
living up to our campaign promises to make the Government less
intrusive, less burdensome on the private sector. We will make
Government regulations more sensible, more responsive to those who must
comply with them. And we will do it without jeopardizing the
environment, or public health and safety.
Many of this issues we debate in Congress have become polarized by
partisanship and deep philosophical differences. But this issue,
providing judicial review of the RFA, is a fine example of how both
parties can identify a problem which the American people want us to
fix, and how we can work together, both Republicans and Democrats, to
solve a problem and help the American people. I am proud to have worked
in a bipartisan fashion with Jan Meyers, Ike Skelton, and John LaFalce
for 4 years to pass judicial review of the RFA. Working together, we
convinced over 250 Members of the last Congress to cosponsor our
legislation, and have passed RFA judicial review with overwhelming
majorities in the House. We have put aside our partisan differences to
pass this commonsense legislation.

The Republican Congress and President Clinton, who have disagreed on
so many issues, have come together in support of providing judicial
review of the RFA. Vice President Gore's Reinventing Government
Commission recommended providing RFA judicial review as its top
priority for the Small Business Administration. RFA judicial review was
again a top recommendation of the White House Conference on Small
Business conducted last year. We have received letters pledging strong
support for RFA judicial review from the President, Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta, and SBA Administrator Philip Lader. I would like to request
consent to include those letters in the Record. Mr. Jere Glover, the
administration's chief advocate for small business, has been a strong
supporter of judicial review and his influence has been very important.
Virtually every national small business organization has been
strongly supportive of RFA judicial review, but a handful of groups
have been active participants of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
coalition for the past 4 years, and have made this issue a top priority
for their members. I would like to recognize these organizations for
their outstanding work and commitment to passing this legislation. Jim
Morrison, Benson Goldstein and Becky Anderson of the National
Association for the Self Employed have provided invaluable
institutional knowledge about how the RFA can and should work. David
Voight of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also provided great
institutional knowledge about the RFA, and the Chamber has lent
considerable clout to this legislation. The National Federation of
Independent Business, and their employees Nelson Litterst and Kent
Knutson, have worked endlessly to mobilize hundreds of thousands of
small businesses in support of this legislation. Both the NFIB and the
Chamber of Commerce have included Reg Flex votes in their ``Key Vote''
programs which have been extremely important in informing Members of
Congress about how important this issue is to their small business
constituents. Craig Brightup and the National Roofing Contractors
Association have made this issue a top priority from the very
beginning, and in fact was the first small business organization to
bring this issue to my attention. Marcel Dubois and the American
Trucking Associations have been extremely active in mobilizing small
businesses in support of RFA judicial review. Finally, Tom Halicki of
the National Association of Towns and Townships has played a critical
role in bringing to the attention of Congress the importance of
judicial review not only to small businesses, but to small governmental
bodies as well.
Finally, I want to thank Representatives Meyers, LaFalce, and Skelton
and their staff, particularly Harry Katrichis of the Small Business
Committee, and Eric Nicoll of my staff for their persistent dedication
to passing this legislation over the past 4 years.

Small Business Administration,

October 8, 1994.
Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wallop: The Administration supports strong
judicial review of agency determinations under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act that will permit small businesses to
challenge agencies and receive strong remedies when agencies
do not comply with the protections afforded by this important
statute.
In fact, the National Performance Review publicly endorsed
this policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and
the regulatory and paperwork burdens on small businesses,
states, and other entities are reduced.
As Chairman of the Policy Committee of the National
Performance Review, under Vice President Gore's leadership I
vigorously advocate this position. I have continued to
champion this policy within the Administration.
If confirmed as Administrator of the U.S. Small Business
Administration, I will join the Congress and the small
business community in continued efforts to pass legislation
for such judicial review.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue to
small business.
Sincerely,
Philip Lader,
Administrator-Designate.
____

The White House,

Washington, October 7, 1994.
Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wallop: Your particular question about the
Administration's position on judicial review of actions taken
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act has come to my
attention.
As you have discussed with Senator Bumpers, the
Administration supports such judicial review of ``Reg Flex.''
The Administration supports a strong judicial review
provision that will permit small businesses to challenge
agencies and receive meaningful redress when they choose to
ignore the protections afforded by this important statute.
In fact, the National Performance Review endorsed this
policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the
regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states,
and other entities are reduced.
Ironically, Phil Lader, our nominee for Administrator of
the Small Business Administration (whose nomination was voted
favorably today by a 22-0 vote of the Senate Small Business
Committee) has been a principal champion of judicial review
of ``Reg Flex.'' In his capacity as Chairman of the Policy
Committee on the National Performance Review, Phil vigorously
advocated this position. I know that, if confirmed, as SBA
Administrator, he would join us in continued efforts to win
Congressional support for such judicial review.
Sincerely,
Leon E. Panetta,
Chief of Staff.
____

The Vice President,

Washington, November 1, 1994.
Hon. Thomas W. Ewing,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Ewing: Thank you for contracting me
regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
As the President and I have made clear, we strongly support
judicial review of agency determinations rendered under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. We remain committed to securing
this important reform during the next Congress and will work
with Congress for the enactment of strong judicial review for
small businesses.
We also understand that it will be important to continue
our work with small businesses to ensure that such an
amendment provides a sensible, reasonable, and rational
approach to judicial review, as recommended by the National
Performance Review. As you know, the National Performance
Review recommended that which was (and continues to be)
sought by the small business community--i.e., an amendment
that furthers the intent of the Act and reduces the paperwork
burdens on small businesses.
The President and I look forward to working with Congress
on this matter and appreciate your leadership in this area.
Sincerely,
Al Gore.
____

The White House,

Washington, October 8, 1994.
Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wallop: My Administration strongly supports
judicial review of agency determinations under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and I appreciate your leadership over the
past years in fighting for this reform on behalf of small
business owners.
Although legislation establishing such review was not
enacted during the 103rd Congress, my Administration remains
committed to securing this very important reform. Toward that
end, my Administration will continue to work with the
Congress and the small business community next year for
enactment of a strong judicial review that will permit small
businesses to challenge agencies and receive meaningful
redress when agencies ignore the protections afforded by this
statute.
As you know, the National Performance Review endorsed this
policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the
regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states,
and other entities are reduced.
Again, thank you for your continued leadership in this
area.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3136, the
Contract With America Advancement Act, which includes language to raise
the amount of money a senior citizen may earn before losing Social
Security benefits. Twice before I have supported this legislation; in
the Senior Citizens' Equity Act, and in the Senior Citizens Right to
Work Act. Support of this legislation is my commitment to the senior
citizens of my district to remove the disincentive to continue working
after they begin receiving their Social Security benefits.

[[Page H3018]]

Increasing the Social Security earnings limit from $11,520 to $30,000
will significantly improve benefits for moderate- and middle-income
beneficiaries who work out of necessity, not choice. It will also
remove the penalty on those with income from work, but not from other
sources such as dividends and interest. I urge my colleagues to help
our Nation's seniors by voting for this bill.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Senior
Citizens' Right to Work Act which has been included in H.R. 3136. This
bill will encourage seniors between the ages of 65 to 69 to work by
eliminating financial penalties on hardworking seniors who want to
supplement meager Social Security benefits. I strongly urge all of my
colleagues to support H.R. 3136 and our senior citizens by increasing
the Social Security earnings limit.
The Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act also contains a provision
which will eliminate Social Security disability benefits to drug
addicts and alcoholics. While I adamantly support this provision, I
would like to voice my concern about the fraud and abuse that will
occur as a result. Given past abuses in the SSI and SSDI programs, we
must be alert to the likelihood that many of these drug addicts and
alcoholics currently on Federal disability rolls will attempt to
requalify for Social Security benefits under other disability
categories. I believe that more can and should be done to ensure
accountability in these programs, eliminate fraud and abuse, and save
Federal dollars.
Mr. Chairman, we should support referral and monitoring agency
programs that currently use national case tracking systems to identify
drug addicts and alcoholics who are improperly receiving Federal
checks. These types of programs have already saved the Federal
taxpayers millions of dollars that would have been spent as a result of
the fraudulent practices of drug addicts and alcoholics. Unfortunately,
this legislation, in eliminating the drug addiction and alcoholism
benefit category, will also eliminate these types of tracking programs.
I hope that we can correct this blow to current fraud and abuse
monitoring practices in order to ensure that drug addicts and
alcoholics do not find a way around the major accomplishments we are
achieving today.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, small manufacturing businesses
striving to meet Federal regulatory requirements must have access to
the technological information they need to comply with Federal and
State laws and regulations. Therefore, I am pleased that the Regulatory
Flexibility Act title of this conference report makes it clear that any
Federal agency with the requisite expertise is empowered to help in
this effort. I am especially pleased that the Manufacturing Extension
Program [MEP] of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
will continue to provide its full menu of services in southern
California and throughout the Nation.
Those of us who have worked to promote the concept of technology
extension over the years are well aware of the unique roles played by
the Small Business Development Centers [SBDC], the Agricultural
Extension Service, and other specialized programs in helping small
business. Each of these programs, however, has limited funding; even
when they are all putting forth their best efforts, there may not be
enough resources to go around. If small business people are required to
take time away from production to comply with environmental and other
standards, we want them to locate the help to do so as readily as
possible, whether that help comes from the Small Business
Administration, the Department of Commerce, or the Department of
Agriculture.
Given that SBDC's have a broad mission to serve all small business,
specialized programs like the MEP are often best situated to meet the
regulatory compliance needs of small manufacturers. In my native
southern California, for example, there are many excellent examples
where the MEP provided help to small businesses that no SBDC could have
been expected to provide. Our region is blessed by a large number of
small manufacturers, including defense subcontractors, who need very
specialized assistance to meet California's air and water quality
standards. This led the MEP to set up the Los Angeles Pollution
Prevention Center, which provides the specialized environmental
engineering expertise both to companies and also to other manufacturing
extension centers.

Let me give some specific examples. Without this center, it would
have been extremely difficult for Nelson Name Plate, a small
manufacturer of metal and plastic nameplates, to survive the mandated
phase-out of chemicals it was using for cleaning its brass stock. The
center helped Nelson implement a closed loop, customized cleaning
system which required no modification of its sanitation permits. The
Pollution Prevention Center also permitted Art-Craft, a 20-person firm
in the Santa Barbara area, to identify a waterborne primer for painting
aircraft which met the exacting standards of both Boeing and the Clean
Air Act and to develop the monitoring system it needed to show
compliance. It helped CUI, a medical prosthesis company, to replace a
curing process using ozone-depleting chemicals with a low-cost,
solvent-free process that led to reductions both in hazardous wastes
and air emissions.
Mr. Speaker, clearly it is in the Nation's interest to write our laws
so that small businesses can provide good jobs and high-quality
products while complying fully with environmental and other important
regulations. I thank the conferees on this Title for avoiding a
legislative turf fight and for allowing the MEP to continue one of its
most important missions.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it is with reluctance that I will vote in
favor of this bill before us today.
For almost 6 months, this Nation's good faith and credit has been
questioned due to the failure of the Republican majority to complete
its budgetary responsibilities.
Apparently, my Republican colleagues have come to their senses and
will end their last minute, stop gap extensions of the Government's
ability to meet its obligations to bond holders and Social Security
recipients.
However, while my colleagues are acting to prevent default they have
attached a number of controversial provisions to this must-pass
legislation--namely, some of the bill's regulatory reform language as
well as line-item veto authority for the President.
Let me be clear, while I am concerned with some of the regulatory
reform provisions included in this bill, I support regulatory reform.
I am pleased that legislation to provide judicial review of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is finally on its way to becoming law.
Small businesses have been working to pass this legislation for
years, and it will give real teeth to the small business protections in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. My subcommittee marked up this
legislation last year, and this will be the second time a version of
this legislation has passed the House.
However, there are other regulatory reform-related provisions in the
debt ceiling bill that were never considered by the Judiciary
Committee, nor any other House committee.
These provisions were not in H.R. 3136 as introduced. Instead, these
items were slipped into a manager's amendment that was adopted by
passage of the rule. Moreover, they are not identical to the provisions
that passed the Senate as part of Senator Bond's bill, S. 942.
For example, one of the non-Senate provisions requires the chief
counsel of the SBA to select individuals representative of affected
small entities who would review a proposed rule before it is available
to the public at large and lobby for changes. These individuals could
be campaign contributors of special interest representatives. This
provision has been limited to OSHA and EPA rules, since apparently the
majority realized what havoc it would wreak if certain politically
connected individuals were able to preview IRS, SEC, and other rules--
and were thus able to restructure their financial transactions, for
example.
Many of the regulatory reform provisions in the bill are meritorious
and are based on S. 942. However, that is no reason to circumvent the
deliberative legislative process. We ought to review these provisions
in committee and work on a bipartisan basis to evaluate and improve
upon them instead of slipping them in to must pass legislation.
If my colleagues are not concerned with some of the provisions of the
regulatory reform language in H.R. 3136, I would urge them to consider
the implications of the line-item veto section of this bill.
I am concerned with wasteful spending, and I have voted to cut a
multitude of unneeded programs like the superconducting supercollider
and the advanced liquid rocket motor.
However, I am opposed to the line-item veto because it would disrupt
the checks and balances of the Constitution. Currently, the President
has the power to veto any legislation and Congress can attempt to
override this veto. A line-item veto would severely inhibit the
legislative branch's say in the spending priorities of this Nation.
The line-item veto sounds innocuous enough, but the people of a small
State like Rhode Island know full well what giving the President the
authority to pick and choose budget items means.
Indeed, Rhode Island has experienced a Presidential effort through
existing executive branch authority to eliminate an essential program.
In 1992, President Bush tried to rescind funding for the Seawolf
submarine program which is vital to our Nation's defense and is the
livelihood of thousands of working Rhode Islanders.
Fortunately, Democrats beat back this attempt, but I am concerned
that the line-item provision before us would make future battles closer
to a Sisyphean battle than a fair fight. For example, a President--of
any political party--could use the line-item veto to eliminate other
programs that are important to Rhode Island without fear because a
small State like mine only has four votes in Congress.

[[Page H3019]]

I would argue that it was this fear of retribution which motivated
the Founding Fathers to give the legislative branch the power of the
purse and restrict the President's veto powers.
Regrettably, the line-item veto before us today, would grossly
distort the Constitution's delicate balance of power and tilt it to the
President, and I cannot support such a shift with the interests of my
State in mind.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, I will support this bill because it
is imperative that we prevent the Government from defaulting on
obligations made many years ago.
In addition, I will also vote for this legislation because it
contains provisions that would increase the amount of income that
Social Security recipients can earn without losing any benefits.
Under current law, Social Security recipients between the ages of 65
and 69 can earn up to $11,520 in 1996 without having their benefits
reduced. Each $3 in wages earned in excess of this limit results in a
deduction of $1 in Social Security benefits.
This legislation gradually increases the amount seniors under age 70
can earn without losing any benefits to $30,000 by the year 2002.
I support increasing the Social Security earnings test and voted in
favor of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, which included this
increase. The House overwhelmingly passed this bill on December 5, 1995
by a vote of 411 to 4.
Approximately 1 million of the 42 million Social Security recipients
are expected to benefit from this increase in the earnings limit.
Increasing the earnings test will help improve the overall economic
situation of low and middle income seniors in Rhode Island who work out
of necessity, not by choice. For example, a Rhode Island senior
currently making $12,500 loses almost $330 in Social Security benefits.
With the increase included in the legislation before us, that senior
would not lose any benefits.
Our seniors have the skills, expertise, and enthusiasm that employers
value, and they should be encouraged to work and contribute, not
penalized for it.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe I have a duty to prevent the
default of the U.S. Government and I will support H.R. 3136, but I
would urge my Republican colleagues to stop using important budget
legislation as a vehicle for pet causes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 391, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
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.

motion to recommit offered by mr. bonior

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BONIOR. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Ways and Means with an instruction to report the bill back to
the House forthwith with the following amendment: Add at the
end of section 331(b) the following:
The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only apply
during periods when the minimum wage under section 6(a)(1) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act is not less than $4.70 an hour
during the year beginning on July 4, 1996 and not less than
$5.15 an hour after July 3, 1997.

point of order

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I make, actually, two points of order: a
point of order that the motion to recommit with instructions is not
germane to the bill; and, second, that the motion to recommit with
instructions constitutes an unfunded intergovernmental mandate under
section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act.
I would ask that a ruling first be made on the point of order against
germaneness, on the basis of germaneness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior] desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BONIOR. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] on the point of order.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very broad in its scope. This
bill provides that the President be given a line-item veto authority.
This bill provides for an increase in the amount Social Security
recipients could earn before their Social Security benefits are
reduced. Third, it allows small businesses to seek judicial review of
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has to do with taxpayers. There is nothing
more important to taxpayers and citizens in this country than to be
able to have revenues in their pockets. What we are offering and what
we are suggesting under this motion to recommit is that we be given the
chance to vote on the increase in the minimum wage, which has not been
raised for the past 5 years. The minimum wage is a very important part
of a variety of laws in this country that deal with ability of people
to make ends meet. People today have incomes----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] to speak on the point of order, and keep his
remarks confined to what is pending.
Mr. BONIOR. I would say to the Speaker that the minimum wage is
directly related to the interest of small business in our country
today.
The third piece of this bill that was added in the Committee on Rules
allows small business to seek judicial review of regulations. In that
sense, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that those people who are affiliated
with small business on the employment side ought to have redress to
getting a decent wage in this country. You cannot live and raise a
family on $9,000 a year or less. We are asking millions of Americans to
do that. This bill will provide an opportunity for----
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, may we have regular order on the debate on
the point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from
Michigan is reminded to confine his remarks to the germaneness of the
point of order as raised by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

{time} 1400

Mr. BONIOR. Let me just add another point to my argument, Mr.
Speaker, on a more technical ground, because I am not able, under the
admonition of the Speaker, and the proper admonition, I would say, to
talk about the substance, which deals with giving people a fair wage in
this country. So I will talk about subtitle c of the bill that requires
that the Department of Labor certify whether any of its rules,
including rules governing the minimum wage, where a small business
could go to court seeking a stay of the Department of Labor's rules
governing the minimum wage.
It seems to me that, because of the addition of that subsection and
the broadening of the bill, the minimum wage indeed is in order as a
discussion point in a motion to recommit.
I would further add, Mr. Speaker, that my recommittal motion is
logically relevant to the bill and establishes a condition that is
logically relevant to subtitle c. Under the House precedent, my motion,
I think, meets this test. If we are meeting the test for employers, if
we are meeting the test for seniors, it seems to me we ought to be
meeting the test for those women, primarily, millions of them raising
kids on their own making less than $8,000 a year. They ought to be
given the chance to have this debated and voted on by the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, wages are important, they are stagnant in this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
will suspend.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I regret again that I must ask for regular
order. The gentleman wants to wander afield and to debate the substance
of the motion to recommit, which is improper at this moment in the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has observed that the gentleman is
to confine his remarks to the point of order, and not the substance.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend from Texas and to
the Speaker for wandering. I have difficulty not talking emotionally
about this issue because of what I see in the country. But I will
confine my remarks to subsection c of the bill that requires

[[Page H3020]]

that the Department of Labor certify. And I would tell my friend from
Texas, the Department of Labor has to certify whether any of its rules,
including rules governing the minimum wage. And that, it seems to me,
is the direct connection in this bill with the needs of working people
in this country who are working for a minimum wage and deserve to have
the opportunity to have that wage increase.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on my point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of
order on germaneness first and, subsequent to the ruling on that point
of order, be heard on the second point of order on intergovernmental
mandates.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not germane because it seeks
to introduce material within the jurisdiction of a committee that is
not dealt with in this bill. That is, the subject of the amendment, the
minimum wage falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities, while the subject matter of the bill
falls only within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means,
the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Rules, the Committee on
the Judiciary, the Committee on Small Business, and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
In addition, the motion to recommit seeks to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which is not amended by this bill.
Finally, there is the gentleman's argument about rulemaking. The
rulemaking authority under this bill is general and not agency
specific. Therefore, the motion to recommit is not germane to the bill
and should be ruled out of order on that basis.
Mr. ENGEL. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel]
wish to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Archer]?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes; I would.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I think it is disingenuous
and outrageous to say that the minority leader's point of order is not
in order here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle
can debate substance at another point in time. This debate now is on
the point of order, and they should be told to restrain their comments
on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is correct. The
Chair would remind the gentleman from New York, as he reminded the
minority whip, that he is to confine his remarks to the question of
germaneness as raised on the point of order by the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me, if we are debating this
bill on raising the debt ceiling limit, that something to do with the
minimum wage is about as germane to the debt ceiling limit lifting as
the line-item veto is and as allowing seniors to make more money for
Social Security purposes. I cannot see why one would not be germane and
why these other things are germane. In fact, we should have a clean
lifting of the debt ceiling and then we would not have to worry about
germaneness after all.
So it would seem to me that we cannot on the one hand attach all
kinds of extraneous things to the lifting of the debt ceiling and then
on the other hand claim that the minimum wage is not at least as
relevant to the lifting of the debt ceiling as the line-item veto and
senior citizens are. I just do not think it is fair if we are going to
talk about playing by fair rules. I think we ought to be fair. While
they may want to stifle free speech on the other side of the aisle, I
think we have a right to ask for equity here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order raised by the gentleman from Texas on germaneness. The
gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the amendment proposed
in a motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Michigan is not
germane to the bill. The text of germaneness in the case of a motion to
recommit with instructions is a relationship of those instructions to
the bill as a whole.
The pending bill permanently increases the debt limit. It also
comprehensively addresses several other unrelated programs,
specifically, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, which amends the
Social Security Act, the Line-Item Veto Act, which amends the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, and the Small
Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, which amends the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Small Business Act, and it establishes
congressional review of agency rulemaking.
The motion does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. The motion
does not directly amend the laws that go directly to the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
The Chair would cite to page 600 of the Manual the following: An
amendment that conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill
by adopting as a measure of their availability the monthly increases in
the debt limit may be germane so long as the amendment does not
directly affect other provisions of law or impose unrelated
contingencies.
Therefore, the Chair rules that this motion is germane and overrules
that point of order.

unfunded mandate point of order

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my second point of order that the
motion to recommit with instructions constitutes an unfunded
governmental mandate under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Section 425 prohibits consideration of a measure containing unfunded
intergovernmental mandates whose total unfunded direct costs exceeds
$50 million annually. The precise language in question is the text of
the instructions that amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase
the minimum wage.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in the
minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 would exceed the threshold amount
under the rule of $50 million. In fact, CBO estimates that it would
impose an unfunded mandate burden of over $1 billion over 5 years.
Let me also point out that CBO estimates that this provision would
result in a 0.5- to 2-percent reduction in the employment level of
teenagers and a smaller percentage reduction for young adults. These
would produce employment losses of roughly 100,000 to 500,000 jobs.
Therefore, I urge the Chair to sustain this point of order, and I urge
my colleagues to vote against the consideration of this unfunded
mandate on State and local governments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas makes a point of
order that the motion violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the
gentleman has met his threshold burden to identify the specific
language of the motion. Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and a Member opposed will each
control 10 minutes of debate on the point of order.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after debate on the point
of order, the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit:
Will the House now consider the motion?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed ironic that a point of order would be made
on this particular motion on the basis that this provides an additional
burden on small businesses in this country. That is from our
perspective not accurate, not fair. Let me take the accuracy argument
first.
Every study recently done in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania, in
California, has come to the conclusion that an increase in the minimum
wage which has not been increased in 5 years, which is at $4.25 an
hour, which is at its lowest level in 40 years, would not only, Mr.
Speaker, would not only not cost businesses, would not cost jobs, it
would

[[Page H3021]]

add jobs. That is what some of these studies have said. Over 100
economists, three Nobel laureates, have suggested it is way past the
time that we raise the minimum wage for these folks who have chosen
work over welfare, 70 percent of them who are adults, many of them
single women with children who need to have more money in their pockets
so that they can survive and so they can live in dignity and teach
their children that work indeed does pay in this country.
That is what we are all about here, making work pay. Five years ago
we passed a similar bill, 90 cents over 2 years, which President Bush
supported. Some of my friends on this side of the aisle support it. And
here we are again, 5 years later, people struggling to make ends meet,
having to work because they are getting paid the minimum wage and in
various parts of this country having to work overtime in some jobs,
having to work two or three jobs; fathers who cannot come home at night
and be with their kids for athletic events, who are not there for PTA
meetings; mothers who have to work overtime who are not there reading
them bedtime stories, teaching their kids right from wrong.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about. This issue is more than
about wages. This is about community. This is about family.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than increasing the
wages of the 80 percent of Americans in this society today who have not
seen an increase since 1979.

{time} 1415

Since 1979, 98 percent of all income growth in America has gone to
the top 20 percent. The other 80 percent got 2 percent of that growth.
So the minimum wage, while it will not help all of those 80 percent,
will help some of them and it will help the people who are above the
minimum wage a little bit. But it more importantly will circulate money
throughout the economy, and the more money people have, the more they
spend at the hardware store, the more they spend at the grocery store.
This indeed is necessary for us to do justice to those who are
working in this society today and who have been denied economic justice
for too long. So I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a
violation of the unfunded mandates bill. This is a funding of the
mandates of people to take care of their families. That is what this is
about, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this clearly is an unfunded mandate on State and local
government. It is the very thing that this Congress overwhelmingly
passed a law to prevent last year. It will significantly increase the
cost of State and local government. If the Federal Government is to do
that by its own legislation, it has an obligation to reimburse the
State and local governments. That is not mandatory that we do that, but
we took the position that it was inappropriate for us to do that. That
is why we are having this debate today, because of the unfunded mandate
legislation that was passed and signed into law by the President last
year.
In addition, it places an unfunded mandate of unquantified amount on
employers, which was also part of the law that we passed on a
bipartisan basis and signed by the President of the United States last
year. Here already the provisions of that law are to be tested. Did we
really mean it? Well, if this motion to recommit passes, it will say to
the American people we did not really mean it.
I do not think that is an appropriate thing for this Congress to do.
CBO estimates that the potential loss of jobs will range, will reduce
the employment level of teenagers and a smaller percentage reduction of
young adults, reducing by a half a percent to 2 percent in the
employment level of those types of individuals. They would produce
employment losses of 90 cents per hour, increasing the minimum wage.
From roughly 100,000 to 500,000 jobs, that 90-cent-per-hour increase
will cost employment that much.
I urge a positive vote on the point of order on unfunded mandates,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, let us say what this really is. This is an attempt by
the Republican majority not to allow the whole issue of minimum wage,
of raising the minimum wage for American workers to come to the floor.
I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. We
cannot get that bill to come to committee. The Republican leadership
has blocked it. We cannot get that bill to come to the floor. The
Republican leadership has blocked it.
They could care less about raising the minimum wage. They expect
people to work at a $4.25 an hour standard, which is less than people
who are on welfare are getting. So much for welfare reform. They claim
they are for welfare reform, but they do not want to pay someone who
wants to work for a living a decent wage. Apparently they think coolie
wages is what we should do, $4.25 an hour. This would simply raise it
to $5.15.
The last raise was 5 years ago. Workers' moneys in terms of what they
make on minimum wage are at a 40-year low. Is there no decency? Do we
not care about what people who are trying to work for a living do?
The Republican majority does not want this to come to a vote. I may
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are they afraid
of? All we are saying is that the minimum wage ought to be raised from
$4.25 to $5.15. We owe it to America's workers to do this. This is
simple decency. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that the vote
will pass and that people on your side of the aisle, some of them, may
even vote for it?
There has been an attempt to block this bill from being in the
committee and from being on the floor. We cannot get a vote. All we are
saying is let us vote up or down whether or not the minimum wage should
be raised. That is all we are asking and that is all we want here this
afternoon.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. ARCHER. Would the Speaker please explain to the House how this
vote will be framed and what a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote will mean,
because this is the first time that we have had a test of the unfunded
mandate legislation?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question will be put by the Chair, to
wit, will the House now consider the motion to recommit? So an ``aye''
vote would mean that the House should indeed consider the motion to
recommit. A ``no'' vote would mean that the House would not consider
the motion to recommit.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, would it be fair to say that a ``no'' vote
then would sustain the point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. Mr. Speaker,
may I be heard?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The statute provides that on this point of
order the House shall decide that question and not a ruling from the
Chair on whether to consider the motion. It would not be a prerogative
of the Chair to make that judgment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that I think a ``yes''
vote on this matter would in effect be saying that we would allow an
unfunded mandate to be passed through, or open the door to passing
through, an unfunded mandate to the States.
Those who would want to sustain the unfunded mandate legislation, and
this is our first look at this thing, the first time we have had to
consider this procedure, those who want to sustain that should vote
``no'' on this measure.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members are watching this debate
because this is the first time that we have had this kind of vote in
the 104th Congress, and I am urging a ``no'' vote on this particular
motion.
I hope Members will really take a look at what is happening here.
This is blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy.

[[Page H3022]]

The gentleman from New York who just spoke before I did said in his
speech that we owe the American workers this vote and we owe the
American workers to raise the minimum wage. Where did he get that? I
submit he got that from the convention that was just held in this town
by the AFL-CIO who said that they would raise over $35 million to take
this majority out.
That is what this vote is all about. This group over here on this
side of the aisle has been screaming and yelling for the last many
weeks.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman's words be taken
down. He used the word ``hypocrisy.''

{time} 1425

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will
report the last words by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
The Clerk read as follows:

The gentleman from New York, who just spoke before I did,
said in his speech that we owe the American workers this vote
and we owe the American workers to raise the minimum wage. I
submit he got that from the convention that was just held in
this town by the AFL-CIO, who said that they would raise over
$35 million to take this majority out. That is what this vote
is all about. This group over here on this side of the aisle
has been screaming and yelling for the last many weeks.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not believe that anything in
those remarks constitutes any personal reference to any other Member of
this body.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk needs to go back farther, because
there was reference and the use of the word ``hypocrite,'' and the
Clerk has not gone back far enough to pick up the words that I objected
to. The word ``hypocrisy'' was used, excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that on
points such as that, the point of order from the gentleman making the
point of order has to be timely. The Clerk has gone back several
sentences to transcribe what the gentleman had said, and the
gentleman's demand certainly was not timely in this instance.
The gentleman from Texas may proceed with his remarks.

point of order

Mr. BONIOR. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, that dialog that I am referring to could not
have taken more than 30 seconds, and it seems to me that I was indeed
timely when I rose to my feet as the gentleman was completing his idea,
which included referring to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel]
with the term ``hypocrisy.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents set, those points of
order raised by the gentleman have to be on a timely basis. This is
precedent that has been set in this body for a number of years where
there are intervening remarks that you are alluding to. So the Chair
rules that the gentleman from Texas may proceed.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

motion to table offered by mr. archer

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of
the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] to lay on the table the appeal of the
ruling of the Chair.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
they ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 185, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 99]

AYES--232

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

NOES--185

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

NOT VOTING--14

Bryant (TX)
Collins (IL)
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fowler
Frost
Hayes
Martinez
McNulty
Smith (WA)
Stokes
Tejeda
Weldon (PA)
Williams

[[Page H3023]]

{time} 1453

So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the
Chair was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Speaker, I was at the White House on official
business and missed vote No. 99. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
I ask that my statement appear in the Record immediately after the
vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Under the order
of business, the debate is on a point of order by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Archer].
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip, has 1 minute
remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, all I was trying to say was is it not
interesting that we are having a motion on the floor, 3 days after the
AFL-CIO had a convention calling for an increase in the minimum wage
and promising to raise $35 million by assessing their membership more
of their hard-earned wages, to take out the majority that is trying to
allow working families to keep more of their hard-earned wages?
I hope everyone that was outraged by the gun vote last week will vote
``no'' on this, because we were accused of the same thing.
Is it not also interesting that we have heard time and time again
that we have not had enough hearings in this body; that we have to look
at these issues, hold hearings on these issues. yet we have the
Democrats bringing a motion to the floor that wants to do away with the
unfunded mandate legislation that was passed by the Senate and debated
in less than 20 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has
5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]
has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing I would like to do
is remind all Members that our balanced budget provides an instant
raise for workers in the form of lower taxes, reduced interest rates,
and greater economic growth.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, do we have the balanced budget before us to
speak on? What is the issue which the speakers in the well should
address?

{time} 1500

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The House is
debating whether to consider the motion to recommit; the question that
the House is debating right now is whether the pending recommittal
motion should be considered.
Mr. VOLKMER. A recommittal motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Whether to consider a recommittal motion.
Mr. VOLKMER. Whether to consider a recommittal motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, our balanced budget provides an instant
raise for workers in the form of lower taxes, reduced interest costs,
and greater economic opportunity which will lead to higher wages for
America's workers.
Let me assure Members that the committee of jurisdiction will look at
the overall picture as to why in the last 3 years we have had a very
stagnant economy, which has resulted in a very stagnant growth in
relationship to wages and benefits. We will look at the overall
picture. We will see whether it is unfunded mandates, such as one that
was proposed today. We will look to see whether it is regulatory reform
that is needed. But we will not look at a single issue because the
issue is all-encompassing and we have to look at every piece of that
and we will do it in a conference. We will do it in committee. We will
do it in hearings. But we will not be rushed to do something that will,
in fact, stagnate the economy even more. We cannot afford to grow at 1
percent or less, or we will never get out of this stagnated economy
that we are presently in.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the leadership of this
House would suggest that requesting an increase in the minimum wage for
American workers is an unfunded mandate. If we follow that logic,
adhere to it, then this body would not be able to do anything to
protect the health and welfare of the American people.
We just heard it said that the so-called balanced budget contains
provisions that will be beneficial to the American workers, tax cuts.
In fact the opposite is true. We are chopping away at the earned income
tax credit. We are going to raise taxes for minimum wage people. That
is what my colleagues are going to do.
Mr. Speaker, the American people need an increase in their wages.
They need an increase in wage. They have come to this Congress and
asked for it. The last time this Congress authorized an increase in
their salary was 1989. They are falling way behind. At the rate of this
minimum wage, a person working full time makes only $8,500 a year. That
is below the poverty level. The American people need an increase in
their wage. They have asked for it. We have a responsibility to give it
to them. Let us give them an increase.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
simply to respond that the Parliamentarian and the Speaker have decided
that there are adequate grounds, that there is an unfunded mandate in
this bill, or we would not be having this procedural vote. Let me make
that very clear. This is a procedural vote. There are adequate grounds
to establish that there is an unfunded mandate in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me correct the gentleman from Texas by suggesting that this is a
motion to proceed on a vote to have a debate on the minimum wage. That
is what we are discussing. That is the issue that is before us. The
question is will we even proceed to discuss this basic fundamental
economic justice issue of whether people can earn a decent living and
whether they should move to work as opposed to welfare in this country.
That is what this is about.
My friend, and he is my friend, from Texas said and preached to us
just a few minutes ago about the AFL-CIO wanting this vote. Those
people do not make the minimum wage. They do not make it because they
got together. They banded together in unity for a decent wage for
themselves. They are working for other folks. They are trying to get
them a decent wage.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling], who is also my friend, says we need to study this. We are
not going to be rushed. We need to go slow. It is at its 40-year low,
40-year low, the minimum wage. No hearings have been held in this
Congress.
We have got about 30-some days left in the legislative calendar. My
colleagues do not want a vote. They are blocking a vote. They blocked
the vote on the minimum wage in the Senate. They are blocking it here
again in the House. Wages are important to people. We want to put money
in people's pockets by raising their wages. That is what this issue is
all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority will find any
excuse to hurt hard-working middle-class families in this country.
Today the Republican majority would deny and block a vote to increase
the minimum wage. Mothers and fathers are working harder, longer hours,
two and three jobs,

[[Page H3024]]

and have seen their wages not rise but decrease. They scramble to pay
their bills, to make ends meet at the end of every week. More than two-
thirds of minimum wage workers are 20 years and older, they are not
teenagers.
The approximate annual average salary of a minimum wage worker is
$8,500 a year. It is below the poverty level. It is below the welfare
level.
Imagine, this Republican majority says no to a 90 cents increase an
hour for working families in this country, 90 cents, when they make
over $130,000 a year.
That is not justice. It is wrong to happen to working families in
this country. Shame. Stop the excuses. Let us vote on a minimum wage in
this House and let us past minimum wage for working families in this
country.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, as a result of my previous parliamentary
inquiry to the Chair and to others, that the debate was on the motion
to recommit to determine whether or not it is an unfunded mandate; is
that correct or incorrect?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will read from section 426(b) of
the Budget Act as to what the House is debating: question of
consideration, ``as disposition of points of order under section 425 or
subsection (a) of this section, the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the proposition that is the subject of
the points of order.''
Mr. VOLKMER. The point of order is the motion to recommit is an
unfunded mandate; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is the point of order.
Now, the Parliamentarian does not rule on this and we are to vote and
make an individual decision as to whether or not we believe that this
is an unfunded mandate if the point of order is proper; is that
correct, as an individual?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is simply on whether this body
wants to consider the motion to recommit, notwithstanding the point of
order.
Mr. VOLKMER. Notwithstanding the point of order. Therefore, any
Member can raise a point of order not on the motion to recommit or an
amendment or anything under this rule, correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only against this motion at this time.
Mr. VOLKMER. Only against the motion.
Now, should the Members not make a decision based on recommendations
like the Congressional Budget Office which says this is not an unfunded
mandate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the
reason the House is having this debate is so the Members can make up
their minds on which way they want to vote on this question.
Mr. VOLKMER. Without listening to the Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the nature
of the question we are voting on.
As I understand it, we are talking about the new rule adopted at the
beginning of this Congress dealing with what to do when there is an
unfunded mandate. Would this vote, and this would help, I believe, us
clarify it, because we have dealt with this once before in my
recollection, would a vote now to proceed with the minimum wage vote be
the equivalent of what the House did when we adopted the rule on the
agriculture bill which waived the unfunded mandate point of order?
When the House adopted the majority's proposed rule on the
agriculture bill, it waived the point of order with regard to unfunded
mandates and allowed us then to proceed on the bill which CBO said had
unfunded mandates. Are we now being asked to do the same thing; namely,
take up the bill although CBO does not say there are unfunded mandates
in there, as we did when we adopted the majority's rule on the
agriculture bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can only respond that the reason
the House is having this debate is so the House can make the judgment
on whether there shall be a vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the previous gentleman mentioned that the
rule on the agriculture bill waived a point of order with regard to
unfunded mandates. Is this the blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy
that the majority whip was referring to?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chair would advise Members that the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Archer] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior] has 30 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Archer] has the right to close.
Mr. BONOIR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1515

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this Congress has passed
huge tax breaks for the rich and for the largest corporations in
America.
But somehow, when some of us want to raise the minimum wage for
millions of American workers, we are told that we are not even allowed
to have a vote.
People today are working longer hours for lower wages, and they are
entitled to a raise. Mr. Speaker, let us raise the minimum wage; more
importantly, let us have the guts to vote on the issue.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, after years of frustration and months of hard
work we are here today to do three good things for the American people:
to give the President of the United States the long-sought line-item
veto authority the American people wish for him to have, to give the
senior citizens of America a chance to work in their senior years and
still retain their Social Security benefits with less prejudice from
the Government's desire to take their earnings away, their benefits
away, if they earn money, and to create job opportunities by lessening
the red tape burden on small business. We are here to do these things
that the minority, when they were in the majority, would not do, and we
can complete that work.
Now we are being asked, and I might say it has been a very colorful
and entertaining show; we are being asked to go back on the work that
we did earlier on unfunded mandates and pose an unfunded mandate on the
communities in our country in order to raise the minimum wage. Is this
an effort to stop three good things from happening or to do one bad
thing?
I was just asked by one of my colleagues a moment ago why is it the
minority did not raise the minimum wage last year when they had the
majority in the House, they had the majority in the Senate and they had
the White House?
Mr. Speaker, I suspect the reason is that they read page 27 of Time
magazine on February 6, 1995, where the President was quoted as saying
that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote, ``the wrong way to raise
the incomes of low wage earners.'' Perhaps they did not.
We have had an interesting show, I have been much entertained by it,
I am sure the Nation has been entertained. But this body belongs to the
people for serious work.
I propose that we vote down this motion, get on with our work, and do
some good things for America rather than punish the working poor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, will the House now consider
the motion to recommit?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H3025]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 228, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 100]

AYES--192

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

NOES--228

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--11

Bryant (TX)
Collins (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fowler
McNulty
Ros-Lehtinen
Smith (WA)
Stokes
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1537

Mr. GILMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the negative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the Record
inaccurate claims made by those on the Republican side of the aisle
that this motion contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate. The
fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it does not. They suggested that
the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this motion
regarding the minimum wage contained an unfunded mandate. CBO did not
make any such determination. In fact, CBO has determined just the
opposite, that this motion does not contain any unfunded mandates. The
document to which the Republicans referred did not cite this language
at all but rather referred to a letter written by CBO last year to a
Member of the other body on another piece of legislation under
consideration by that Chamber. That legislation contained specific
language which would have directly increased the minimum wage. To
equate that legislation with this modest motion is to compare apples
and oranges--make that grapes and watermelons.
I want to place at this point in my statement, a letter from the
Congressional Budget Office that states that this motion does not
contain an unfunded mandate:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, March 28, 1996.
Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: As you requested, we have reviewed the
motion made by Mr. Bonior to determine whether it contains an
intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). The motion would
require H.R. 3136, the Contract with America Advancement Act
of 1996, to be recommitted to the House Committee on Ways and
Means, with instructions to add a new section to the bill.
The new section would amend section 331 of Subtitle C to
prohibit the administrative proceedings provisions of that
subtitle from applying in any period during which the minimum
wage was less than $4.70 per hour beginning on July 4, 1996,
and $5.15 per hour after July 3, 1997.
The motion and the new section would not increase the
minimum wage, but would make other provisions conditional on
such an increase. Subsequent legislation would be necessary
to increase the minimum wage. Public Law 104-4 defines an
intergovernmental mandate as ``any provision in legislation .
. . that would impose an enforceable duty upon state, local,
or tribal governments.'' The motion contains no such
enforceable duty and thus does not contain an
intergovernmental mandate.
If you wish further details on this matter, we would be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Theresa
Gullo.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill,
Director.

It is very important that the membership of the House of
Representatives, during this first formal raising of the unfunded
mandate point-of-order, be aware of this attempt by the Republican
majority to misuse, confuse, and distort the once laudable intention of
this law. The unfunded mandates legislation enjoyed widespread bi-
partisan support, passing the House by vote of 394 to 28. I was a
member of the conference committee and a supporter of this measure.
Members on both sides of the aisle supported this initiative because of
growing concern over the imposition of unfunded Federal requirements on
the public and private sector.
I am deeply concerned that the unfunded mandates law is being used
not to curb the past practice of imposing financial burdens on State
and local government entities and the private sector, but instead to
stifle debate on certain legislative items.
During the consideration on the unfunded mandates legislation in
January 1995, I expressed my concern on the section of the bill that
implemented this new point-of-order. The legislation specifically
prevents the Rules Committee from waiving the point-of-order that is
triggered when there is an unfunded mandate--as defined by Public 104-
4--in any bill, joint resolution, motion, conference report, or
amendment. Only a small handful of House rules in the history of the
House of Representatives have been given this special protection. If a
member raises an unfunded mandates point-of-order, all he or she need
do is to cite the provision in the measure under debate. There is an
automatic 20 minutes of debate followed by a vote.
There is no parliamentary or budgetary ruling and there is no burden
of proof on the

[[Page H3026]]

Member raising the point-of-order. It does not matter if the point-of-
order is baseless, simply by raising the point-of-order, the House is
required to vote on whether to consider the text that is challenged. A
simple majority of the House, for any reason, regardless of whether
there is any legitimate financial imposition or not, can deny the
opportunity of a Member to proceed with an otherwise germane and viable
legislative measure. I raised the concern at that time that this could
be used both to stop legislation not containing unfunded mandates from
being considered on the floor and as a dilatory tactic to disrupt the
legislative process. I was always assured that this would not be used
for this purpose. Even then, however, I did not anticipate that the
very first use of this tactic would be to deny the minority the right
to offer an entirely legitimate and germane motion to recommit.
One of the Republican leadership's first changes to the House rules
on the 104th Congress guaranteed the minority the right to recommit
with instructions. In fact, during the 102d and 103d Congresses in
particular, we in the majority were crudely accused of ``raping the
rights of the minority'' by, on rare occasion, denying them
instructions on the motion to recommit. Now it appears they are grossly
misusing the new unfunded mandates law and, on this first challenge out
of the gate, we are being denied the very right that was so vital to
the Republicans in previous Congresses.
I am deeply troubled that if this practice continues, it could simply
become a backdoor approach used to gag legitimate debate, whether on
the motion to recommit or on any other responsible and germane
legislative initiatives. I urge the majority to carefully consider the
ramifications of misusing the unfunded mandates point-of-order for
purposes other than the legitimate intentions spelled out in Public Law
104-4. The unfunded mandates law should be used as tool to fix
legislation that imposes unfair financial burdens on state and local
governments and the private sector. It should not be used as a weapon
to prevent the consideration of viable and responsible legislation
initiatives.

motion to recommit offered by mr. orton

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the
gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ORTON. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Orton moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Ways and Means with instructions to report the bill forthwith
with the following amendment:
On page 60, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the
following:

SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATES.

This title and the amendments made by it shall take effect
and apply to measures enacted after the date of its enactment
and shall have no force or effect on or after January 1,
2005.

parliamentary inquiries

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, before being recognized to speak on my motion
to recommit, I have a parliamentary inquiry which is important to
resolve, so people can understand the motion to recommit and how it
fits into what we have been voting on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that the rule which was adopted
providing for debate on this bill did automatically adopt the
conference report on the line-item veto as a separate bill and
authorize that to be sent to the President for his signature?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would tell the gentleman that the
answer to that is yes.
Mr. ORTON. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct
that the rule provides that title II in this bill, which is the line-
item veto title, would be stripped from this bill if unamended, and the
bill would be sent without title II, but if amended, title II would
remain in this bill and go to the Senate for their consideration?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the gentleman, if title II
were amended as a result of a motion to recommit, then it would not be
stricken from the engrossed bill. But the operation of section 2(b) of
the House Resolution 391 would not be affected. The conference report
on S. 4 would stand as adopted.
Mr. ORTON. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the conference report, standing as
adopted, would go to the President for his signature, regardless of
whether this motion to recommit is adopted and the title is amended.
The only effect of amending the title would be to keep title II in the
bill as amended for Senate consideration of the title II as amended, is
that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. ORTON. So if we adopt the motion to recommit and amend this title
II, the President would have the original conference bill under the
rule for his signature, and assuming the Senate adopted this bill with
the amendment, would also have title II as amended, under this bill for
his signature, is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would be possible.
Mr. ORTON. I thank the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] is
recognized for 5 minutes on the motion to recommit.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I will be as clear and concise as I can. This
motion to recommit does one thing and one thing only to the bill we are
considering. It simply says that the line-item veto provisions of the
bill would become effective immediately upon enactment, rather than
waiting until the next calendar year to become effective. That is all
it does.
Therefore, the President will already get the opportunity to sign the
conference report making line-item veto effective the beginning of next
year.

{time} 1545

This amendment will give him the opportunity, if adopted, to make it
effective immediately and give the President the authority to veto
items of specific spending between the date of enactment and the next
calendar year. That is the only difference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just in explanation suggest that not only I
but many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this line-
item veto. The line-item veto has not been partisan. It is supported by
both Democrats and Republicans, by the Congress and the President. In
fact, during floor debate in the other body on March 23, 1995, the
majority leader said the following: ``During the 1980's, opponents of
the line-item veto used to say that Republicans supported it only
because the President happened to be a Republican at the time. Now, we
are in the majority and we are prepared, nearly all of us on this side,
to give this authority to a Democratic President.''
The Senate majority whip said the following: ``Why be afraid of
allowing this current President to use his power? We on this side of
the aisle, the Republicans, are ready to give this opportunity to
President Clinton so he can have the opportunity to pare spending.''
In this body in February 1995 during debate on this line-item veto
bill, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Solomon, said the
following: ``Well, here we are. We get a Democrat President, and here
is Solomon up here fighting for the same line-item veto for the
Democrat President.''
Finally, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] during the same debate
said, ``Let us give it to the President whether the President is
Democrat or Republican. Let us stop the games. Let us get into budget
management.''
That is what this amendment is about. It is about budget management.
It is about stopping the partisan games. It is about saying we are for
line-item veto now, not next year or next decade; we want it to be
effective upon enactment.
Mr. Speaker, that is all this amendment will do. If passed, it will
send it to the other body for consideration and the President's
signature, which would then give us all the opportunity to drop
partisan rhetoric and actually have the opportunity to cut spending.
Now someone suggests we do not really need it because we are cutting
spending. This is the 1996 congressional pig book put out by the
Citizens Against Government Waste. They have identified over $12.5
billion in the eight appropriation bills that we have already passed
for 1996 of questionable spending which, if the President had this
authority right now, he could veto. That is for 1996. We have lost that
opportunity. Let us not lose the opportunity for 1997. Let us give him
the opportunity during the appropriation process of 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

[[Page H3027]]

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for
yielding.
I would say this is a very simple motion. I voted for a line-item
veto for President Bush. I voted for the rule to give the line-item
veto immediately to the President 2 hours ago. This motion will say, do
not wait until 1997, do not play politics, do not do what the American
people do not want us to do. Let the President cut $25 billion out of
spending now.
Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to see and explain to our
constituents why we did not extend the line-item veto to the President
of the United States tomorrow.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just say we do not want to
make this a partisan fight. This motion to recommit is not partisan.
This motion to recommit does nothing to the bill which we are adopting
except one thing: making the line-item veto effective immediately upon
enactment so that this President has not only the opportunity, but the
responsibility, to look at each item of spending and veto those items
that he believes are inappropriate, send them back under new
legislation. It is appropriate, it is responsible, it is the thing to
do. I would urge adoption of the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Archer] is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to
the motion to recommit.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned with what I am
hearing here today because Senate Majority Leader Dole and President
Clinton chose the effective dates that are in this bill today. If we
want to kill line-item veto, we will unbalance this very, very delicate
document we have here today.
Mr. Speaker, our conferees have spent a year now working together
with people who did not want a line-item veto over in the other body.
There were a lot of them. But finally, with the leadership of Bob Dole
we got them to move, and they conceded to us on almost everything,
almost everything. We have a real, true line-item veto here today,
something we have always wanted.
Now, there are things in here I do not like. There is a sunset
provision for 8 years. I wanted it to be permanent. Know what we did?
We traded that off to get something that my colleagues and I want, and
that is a lockbox provision, so that if any President vetoes an item
and it sticks, that means that money cannot be reprogrammed. It means
it is cut out of the budget and we have that satisfaction.
Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan told me once, Jerry, the art of
compromise means success in politics; people have other views. We have
worked diligently with Senator Exon and other good Democrats on the
other side of the aisle in the Senate to put this together. We better
vote down this motion to recommit and vote for this, and let us give
the President a true line-item veto. That is what the American people
want.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I served as chairman of the conference on
the line-item veto. It was a difficult, contentious, hotly contested
conference. We argued and debated over the issues long and hard. It
took us a year, yes, it took us longer than any of us would have
wanted.
It was not a partisan matter; in fact, there are those who support
line-item veto, the gentleman from Utah being one of the staunchest
supporters of the line-item veto on both sides of the aisle and in both
Chambers, so this is not a partisan issue. But what we finally arrived
at, I think, is the best that we can get. One of the items that was
agreed to was an effective date. That was only finally resolved because
there was an agreement reached between the President of the United
States and the majority leader of the Senate to depoliticize the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that to change the effective date now
would really put this right square in the middle of the Presidential
debate. I think it would clearly distort what we are trying to do here.
By putting it on January 1, obviously the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
Orton] and Members on the other side of the aisle feel very strongly
that they will, in fact, reelect our President, their party leader. We,
on the other hand, feel very strongly that we will elect our nominee,
Mr. Dole. This takes it out of the political spectrum. It gives the
next President or the continuing President the ability to use this
line-item veto.
So I would urge, and urge strongly, Members on both sides not to
upset the apple cart here, because it really could do violence to what
we had agreed to.
Our conference report is on its way to the President now. It was, in
fact, passed as a result of the rule that passed. It was passed. Now,
if we were to adopt this amendment, it would change a deal that has
been made, an agreement that has been reached, bipartisan on both sides
of the aisle and I think would possibly make it difficult for us
actually to exercise the line-item veto.
So I would urge as strongly as I can, please, keep the effective date
where it is, keep it out of the political and the Presidential campaign
this year.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what was said in the earlier
debate, that the President has within his power unilaterally to
activate this authority immediately after his signature on the bill by
signing and agreeing to a balanced budget for this country and does not
have to wait until January 1, 1997.
Further, to say to the Members that the perfect can be the enemy of
good movement for what has taken so very, very long, and I know it
better than anybody else, because I initiated line-item veto as a
proposal before the Congress. It is not agreed to, it can be signed
into law. Let us not put it back into the maze of procedure that could
further tie it up this year. I urge a vote against the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas
and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 159,
nays 256, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 101]

YEAS--159

Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Shadegg
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Zimmer

NAYS--256

Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton

[[Page H3028]]

Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--16

Bryant (TX)
Collins (IL)
Duncan
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fowler
Lantos
McIntosh
McNulty
Ros-Lehtinen
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stokes
Tate
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1614

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mrs. Fowler against.

Mrs. MYRICK, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. WATT of
North Carolina, and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay''
Messrs. PAYNE of New Jersey, SHADEGG, and SALMON changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 328,
noes 91, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 102]

AYES--328

Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Royce
Rush
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--91

Abercrombie
Baker (CA)
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Borski
Bunn
Chenoweth
Clay
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Crapo
Dellums
Dingell
Doolittle
Evans
Fattah
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herger
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kingston
Klink
LaFalce
Largent
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Metcalf
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Myers
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pombo
Rahall
Rangel
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Yates

NOT VOTING--12

Bryant (TX)
Collins (IL)
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fowler
Lantos
McNulty
Ros-Lehtinen
Smith (WA)
Stokes
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1632

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mrs. Fowler for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for, with Mr. Filner against.
Mrs. Smith of Washington for, with Mr. Stokes against.

[[Page H3029]]

Mr. CRAPO and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FOGLIETTA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________