[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2946-H2959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 84, 
         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 152 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 152

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1990, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The first 
     reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against the concurrent resolution and 
     against its consideration are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the congressional budget and shall not exceed 
     five hours and twenty minutes (including one hour on the 
     subject of economic goals and policies), with five hours 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget and twenty 
     minutes controlled by Representative Minge of Minnesota or 
     his designee. After general debate the concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment shall be in order except the amendments in the 
     nature of substitutes designated in section 2 of this 
     resolution, if printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record, designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule 
     XXIII. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     designated, may be offered only by a Member designated, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for twenty minutes 
     (except as otherwise provided in section 2) equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall 
     not be subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
     amendments designated in section 2 are waived except that the 
     adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of question 
     shall be fifteen minutes. After the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the 
     Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.
       Sec. 2. The following amendments are in order pursuant to 
     the first section of this resolution:
       (1) the amendment numbered 1, which shall be debatable for 
     one hour;
       (2) the amendment numbered 2;
       (3) the amendment numbered 3;
       (4) the amendment numbered 4; and
       (5) the amendment numbered 5.
       Sec. 3, Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the 
     adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 152 is a modified closed rule providing 
for consideration of a historic document, House Concurrent Resolution 
84, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998, which incorporates the 
balanced budget agreement reached recently between the President and 
the congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle.
  The rule is very similar to rules for the budget resolution in the 
recent past. The rule, not unlike the budget resolution itself, is the 
product of bipartisan negotiations and adequately reflects the spirit 
of fairness and cooperation in which those negotiations were carried 
out.

[[Page H2947]]

  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 152 provides 5 hours of general debate, 
including 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, or the 
so-called Humphrey-Hawkins debate. The rule also provides for an 
additional period of 20 minutes of debate to be controlled by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. The rule then provides for 
consideration of five substitute amendments representing various 
contrasting points of view on budget priorities for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third year in which the Committee on Rules 
has required Members filing substitute amendments to ensure that their 
amendment achieves balance by the year 2002. In other words, we are 
staying on this glidepath to a balanced budget, and whatever is adopted 
here today will guarantee that.
  Members are entitled to devise substitutes reflecting different 
priorities where a common goal should be a balanced Federal budget by 
the year 2002.
  The substitute amendments shall be considered in the order specified 
in the rule, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
further amendment and waives points of order against them. The 
substitutes were also printed in the Congressional Record on May 19, 
Monday, and are therefore available in Members' offices today.
  The substitutes shall be considered in the following order and are 
debatable for the following specified times:

                              {time}  1415

  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] for 60 minutes; the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] for 20 minutes; the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown] for 20 minutes; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for 20 minutes; and the last substitute 
will be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and 
will be debated for 20 minutes as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule also follows the precedent of the 104th 
Congress and provides that if anyone's substitute amendment is adopted 
in the Committee of the Whole, that action shall bring the House to an 
immediate vote on final passage of the resolution, as amended. What 
that means, Mr. Speaker and Members back in their offices, quite simply 
is that there are no free votes here today.
  The amendment process for these substitutes is not king of the Hill, 
it is not queen of the Hill, most votes wins, or any other creation; it 
is the traditional, old-fashioned amendment process in the Committee of 
the Whole. If any substitute passes, let me repeat this one more time, 
the debate will immediately cease and the House will proceed directly 
to a vote on final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House also suspends the application 
of House rule 49, the so-called Gephardt rule on the debt limit. A 
separate consideration of the debt limit issue is contemplated by the 
balanced budget agreement with the White House in the context of a 
reconciliation bill. For the third year in a row, we have squarely 
addressed the challenging issue of the debt limit and suspended this 
House rule which allows Members to avoid accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule allows for consideration of many of the various 
alternatives to this historic agreement that exists in this body. The 
rule will allow for a full day of deliberation and votes on these 
differing blueprints of our Nation's fiscal priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to a friend of his in 
1816, gave the following charge. He said: To preserve people's 
independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
  That was way back in 1816.
  He went on to say: We must make our election between economy and 
liberty, or profusion and servitude.
  Today, the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan manner, will act 
upon Jefferson's advice back in 1816. Let it be recognized that at the 
end of this day, the House will pass a bipartisanly supported balanced 
budget, something I admit that I never thought would happen in my 20 
years here. This dramatic shift in the fiscal direction of our country 
is in large part due to the steadfast leadership and the committed 
drive of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the bipartisan 
members of that Committee on the Budget. They, and others who worked 
with them, deserve our commendation here today.
  Now with respect to the actual budget before us, I would like to make 
a few observations. First, this balanced budget agreement does not 
reflect the complete priorities of any one Member. In fact, I can say 
with certainty that every Member in this House would probably have 
written this differently if he or she were the only one making the 
decisions. I know that if I were writing this budget, I would have had 
much deeper spending cuts, much more tax cuts, more entitlement reform, 
and more spending for defense. Those are all my priorities.
  However, it is important to point out again that the nature of a 
democracy rests on the art of compromise, a compromise not in principle 
but in approach and process. That is what Ronald Reagan spent years 
trying to teach me, and it took a long time to sink in, because I see 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] sitting over there, and we 
all think that our infinite wisdom is the best and that everybody ought 
to do exactly what we think.
  This compromise is epitomized in the leadership of the Committee on 
the Budget in crafting a bipartisan agreement that reflects the 
principles of balanced budgets, lower taxes, lower spending, and a 
smaller Federal Government. Indeed, this budget reflects the charge of 
Jefferson enduring more economy and more liberty.
  Second, on balance, I think this is a good budget, it is built upon 
permanent spending savings and permanent tax cuts; not temporary, 
permanent. These are specific changes written into the law, something 
radically different from the procedural spending caps and deficit 
targets included in previous budget agreements, such as Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings. We all know what happened with those, because there were no 
permanent spending cuts and there were no permanent tax cuts.
  Last night up in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] elaborated on just how far we have come. I think my colleagues 
ought to listen to these facts. First, this agreement balances the 
budget for the first time in 30 years, and for only the second time in 
the last 40 years. Then we wonder how we got ourselves into this 
deficit mess we are in today. Government spending will be less, listen 
to this, less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product for the 
first time since 1974. That is 22 years ago. America will save, and my 
colleagues ought to listen to this, some conservatives who are like me, 
America will save $600 billion over the next 5 years in entitlement 
spending.
  That means entitlement reform, I say to my colleagues, the fastest-
growing portion of this budget. Nondefense discretionary spending will 
grow at a rate of one-half of one percent a year over the next 5 years. 
How is that different? Because over the last 5 years, it has grown by 6 
percent.
  Now, the next 5 years it is going to grow by less than half of one 
percent, and contrary to what some have asserted, this budget is built 
on conservative assumptions that the economy will grow at 2.1 percent 
over the next 5 years, that unemployment will rise to 6 percent, and 
that the consumer price index will continue to go up. However, the 
economy has actually been growing stronger, reaching 5.6 percent in the 
last quarter, so we can see the differences here. The unemployment rate 
has remained below 4.9 percent, not 6 percent, as is projected in this 
budget agreement. So those mean real, real changes. The CPI may 
actually be going down.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is built on sound economic assumptions as 
well as a strong and vibrant national economy. Furthermore, the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, has stated that 
balancing the budget will further improve the performance of the 
economy, which will make these figures even more important. This is not 
a budget of rosy scenarios and numbers games, this is an honest fiscal 
blueprint, and if this fiscal conservative is standing here telling you 
this, I think you can believe it.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, this budget resolution, and the 
reconciliation bills that follow it, are perhaps the most important 
bills we will pass this Congress, important in the sense that they will 
directly benefit every single

[[Page H2948]]

American family in this country. We owe it to those families to pass 
this budget today, and once that is done, we face the difficult task of 
summoning the courage to vote yes on the enabling authorization and 
appropriation measures that will cut spending, cut taxes, and cut the 
deficits that are bankrupting future generations of America and turning 
this country into nothing more than a debtor Nation.
  I, for one, stand here today and pledge right now that I will vote 
for every one of those spending cuts that is going to live up to this 
very, very difficult agreement. This budget is a victory for America's 
children, and I believe something this Congress and even this President 
should be proud to support. I urge my colleagues to follow Thomas 
Jefferson's instructions, to improve independence, to preserve 
independence, and maximize liberty by supporting this rule and 
supporting this balanced budget agreement today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I have a question for 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon].
  The question is, is this rule a moving target? There evidently is 
some controversy on your side, continuing controversy on your side, as 
to whether the Minge amendment should be made in order. It is not 
currently made in order under the rule, and I would ask the gentleman 
whether he contemplates asking the House to amend the rule to make the 
Minge amendment in order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend from Texas, 
[Mr. Frost], that we have that under consideration. As the gentleman 
knows, there has been evidently a misunderstanding as far as the Minge 
substitute, which is the better-known blue dog substitute, whether that 
was supposed to have been made in order or not. As the gentleman knows, 
there were 20 minutes of debate set aside during the general debate 
time for the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and his associates.
  There are conversations going on now with the Republican leadership, 
the Democrat leadership, to find out how we might remedy the 
misunderstanding. Unfortunately, we probably will not know that for 
another 15 or 20 minutes, but I would hope to receive some direction in 
the next 10 or 15 minutes and I will be glad to enlighten the gentleman 
as soon as I am enlightened myself.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, so it is possible that the gentleman will 
seek to amend the rule, either by unanimous consent or by motion, at 
some point during this hour?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
there is that possibility, but again negotiations and communications 
are going on, on both sides of the aisle, and I will let the gentleman 
know as soon as possible.
  Mr. FROST. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out, again, as the gentleman knows, that 
the Members on my side of the aisle moved in the Committee on Rules 
last night that the Minge amendment be made in order and that that was 
rejected on a straight party line vote. It would be helpful, Mr. 
Speaker, for us to have some degree of notice as to what the rule 
really is. This really handicaps debate, not knowing what we are 
debating.
  So I would urge the disagreement on the Republican side, between one 
group of Republicans and the other group of Republicans, to be resolved 
as quickly as possible, so that we may know what rule we are dealing 
with.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield again?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman points out that all 
disagreement is on this side, but I would just inform the gentleman, or 
recall to him that the President of the United States does not support 
the Minge amendment, and has asked for no amendments in effect to have 
been made in order to pass on this floor, so it is not just the 
Republicans, it is the Republicans and Democrats that are trying to 
work out this problem to make sure that we do not break this agreement. 
It is terribly important we keep the agreement together.
  The gentleman knows I happen to support the Minge amendment and would 
like to see it made in order, and hopefully we can do that but we will 
have to wait and see.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the disagreement between 
one group of Republicans and the other can be resolved as quickly as 
possible so that we can know what rule we are debating.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us gives Members of the House the 
opportunity to make a choice on how best to balance the Federal budget 
in the next 5 years. In addition to the text of the budget resolution 
reported by the Committee on the Budget, the rule makes in order five 
substitutes which address different budgeting priorities. Each 
substitute offers an alternative to the agreement negotiated between 
the Republican leadership and the President.
  I would like to point out, however, that the rule does not, as I just 
mentioned, does not make in order a substitute which the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], brought to the committee on behalf of the 
coalition. During our consideration of this resolution in the Committee 
on Rules last night, I offered an amendment to the rule which would 
have allowed the coalition substitute to be considered today. That 
amendment was defeated on a straight party-line vote.
  While the rule does give the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] 20 
minutes of debate time in order to explain the coalition's position, it 
is indeed unfortunate that the Republican majority did not make his 
substitute in order last night.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, the rule does make five substitutes in order. 
The first, which will be offered by the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters] is an alternative budget offered by the Congressional 
Black Caucus. This substitute provides for no tax cuts until after the 
year 2002, and meanwhile, provides increased funding for domestic 
discretionary programs as well as fewer cuts in Medicaid or Medicare.
  The second substitute offered by the gentleman from California takes 
the opposite tack of the Waters substitute. This proposal reduces 
nondefense discretionary spending by an additional $109 billion over 
the 5 years and uses those freed-up funds for additional tax cuts.

                              {time}  1430

  The third alternative will be offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown]. The Brown substitute increases nondefense 
discretionary outlays and makes no provision for tax cuts until after 
the year 2002. The focus of the Brown substitute is on investment 
spending for economic growth in such areas as research and development, 
transportation, and education and training.
  The fourth alternative, which will be offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], cuts less from Medicare and spends more on 
domestic discretionary programs than does the Committee on the Budget 
recommendation. The Kennedy substitute provides $100 billion more for 
health, education, transportation, research and development, economic 
development programs, than does the budget agreement. The Kennedy 
substitute provides $60 billion in tax cuts over the 5 years compared 
with the $85 billion recommended in the committee resolution.
  The fifth and final alternative, to be offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], increases spending on transportation 
programs by $12 billion over the amount provided in the budget 
agreement. These increases are offset by across-the-board reductions in 
discretionary spending, both defense and nondefense, as well as by a 
reduction in the tax cuts provided in the committee resolution.
  As Members can see, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have offered 
distinct alternatives to the budget agreement. Each provides a 
different means of achieving the goal of a balanced budget by the year 
2002. But all Members should take careful note of how this rule is 
structured. If any of these

[[Page H2949]]

alternatives is adopted, then the House will have finally spoken and no 
other alternative will be voted on, nor will the committee resolution 
be voted on.
  In other words, if, for instance, the Brown substitute receives a 
majority vote, then the House will never vote on either the Kennedy or 
Shuster substitute or the committee bill.
  I urge my colleagues to listen very carefully to the debate over the 
course of the next few hours. The decisions we make here today will 
affect every man, woman, and child in this great country of ours. The 
votes we cast today are, however, only the first step toward 
implementing a plan to balance the budget. The really hard votes are 
yet to come.
  Mr. Speaker, even if we pass a plan tonight or sometime early 
tomorrow, all we have done is establish a framework. No Member is 
obligated to support legislation implementing this plan if he or she 
ultimately considers it unfair or ill-conceived. Members will need to 
examine the reconciliation package that emerges from the committees of 
the House later this summer very carefully to ensure that their 
provisions do not unfairly affect one segment of our population in 
order to provide gain or benefit to a few.
  Mr. Speaker, no matter what decision the House reaches today, let us 
be sure that in the coming weeks and months that the decisions we make 
in implementing a balanced budget plan are fair and equitable and 
benefit all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Westchester, OH [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and 
share my views about this important rule. Let me congratulate the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the members of the Committee 
on Rules for putting together a rule that will provide for a fair and 
open debate from many different viewpoints on this issue of the budget.
  Today really is another historic day in this Congress, another 
milestone in the 33 months that Republicans have controlled this House. 
Last year, we passed historic reforms like welfare reform, trying to 
bring dignity back to American families and encourage those on welfare 
to help them become more productive members of our society. We passed 
illegal immigration reform, health care reform. We eliminated some 300 
Federal Government programs and reduced spending by $53 billion over 
those 2 years.
  Today is another step in the direction of a smaller, less costly, 
less intrusive government here in Washington, when we pass a resolution 
to balance the Federal budget over the next 5 years. Balancing the 
Federal budget will bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and begin 
the process of saving the future for our children.
  As part of this agreement Members will see us provide permanent tax 
relief for American families. Our $500-per-child tax credit, capital 
gains tax cuts for all Americans, and in my district for farmers and 
small business people, this will be a huge benefit to them.
  Members also see us work in this agreement to save Medicare. 
Medicare, as we all know, is going broke. It is an important program 
for our senior citizens. We need to protect and preserve Medicare. That 
will be part of this agreement. It will not solve the problem long 
term, but it will provide 10 years of solvency to the Medicare trust 
fund.
  Is there a lot more to do? You bet. But I have to tell the Members, 
as one who has been here for just 6 years, this is another giant step 
for this Congress. The real winners in this agreement are not 
Republicans and not Democrats, but the American people and our children 
and their children who will benefit because they will have the shot at 
the American dream that today is in jeopardy for them.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the rule does provide for a 
reasonable amount of debate, but it is a flawed process. In the first 
place, it is simply wrong for us to be debating on such short notice 
such a comprehensive piece of legislation. There simply has not been 
time, and no one can begin to argue that there has been, since the deal 
was cut last week, for there to be any thorough airing of this.
  This process disserves democracy, Mr. Speaker. People talk about the 
American people, but apparently do not have enough confidence in them, 
Mr. Speaker, to let them make the decisions through the normal 
democratic process.
  I reject the notion that the democratic process has broken down. 
Through the normal democratic process in the 1993 budget agreement that 
I voted for, as did many on this side, we have brought the deficit 
down. We have brought the deficit down unusually, unlike during the 
Reagan years, at a time when we are stimulating the economy.
  Indeed, the Federal Reserve is in a meeting now, and I do not know 
whether they decided to try and slow it down again, I hope not, but the 
economy in fact we are told by the Federal Reserve is growing too 
quickly. We are beginning to make progress. That does not mean we can 
rest on our laurels. It does mean that there is no argument for short-
circuiting democracy, for having a comprehensive budget deal, arrived 
at in private meetings, voted on within a couple of days, and to 
preempt decisions that the voters ought to make.
  How can we decide today what the breakdown between military and non-
military spending ought to be 3 and 4 years from now? How can we today 
decide that we are going to put limits on health research, limits on 
community development? How do we make those decisions today, and why? 
What is the matter with letting democracy function? Why should we not 
allow, in the 1998 and 2000 elections, this country decide?
  We should be getting the deficit to zero. We are making progress, and 
indeed, we will have made more progress in terms of reducing the 
deficit in dollar terms over the last couple of years without this deal 
than we are going to make in the next couple of years with this deal.
  The first impact of this deal will be to slow down the progress. 
Instead, we ought to slow down the deal.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget is that one piece of legislation where we 
really set forth priorities for America. We decide what is important to 
us, what our values are, and in effect, we put a price tag on them. In 
the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall substitute provided for in this rule 
later tonight, Members will have an opportunity to make a choice for 
the future of America. We will offer Members the opportunity on behalf 
of all Americans to make an investment in America's transportation 
needs in $1 trillion of our $6 trillion national economy, which is what 
transportation accounts for.
  What we will do in this substitute is equally cut across-the-board, 
one-third of 1 percent over 5 years reduction in domestic 
discretionary, defense discretionary spending, and the tax reduction 
will be one-third of 1 percent less than proposed, in order to put back 
into transportation the tax dollars we pay at the gas pump.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing this afternoon and this 
evening with one of the more dramatic and far-reaching budget 
resolutions that has been considered in Congress in recent memory. We 
have a bipartisan resolution that is designed and calculated to use 
Congressional Budget Office forecasting and eliminate this deficit by 
the year 2002.
  At the same time, we are dramatically reducing taxes and we are 
expanding programs. I think for many of us this seems too good to be 
true. Some of us are pinching ourselves and saying, is it possible that 
it cannot be true? How can we ensure that we achieve the results that 
we expect?
  Several, in fact, over 60 in this body signed a letter that went to 
the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget 
saying that we need to have enforcement language in the budget 
resolution, representing the sense of Congress, as to what our

[[Page H2950]]

goals are, and we were not able to get that language into the 
resolution in the committee.
  We were told in the committee that we would have an opportunity to 
present that in a substitute budget on the floor. Unfortunately, the 
rule does not allow that substitute to be considered. For this reason, 
I must rise and strongly, strongly oppose the rule that is before us 
this afternoon, and say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, a 
bipartisan effort to include significant strong enforcement language 
has been undermined by the machinations of staff or someone in this 
institution.
  I think it is deeply regrettable that this bipartisan undertaking, 
which would have been historic, will not be allowed to proceed, and I 
urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against 
the previous question and against the resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], a very distinguished member of the committee.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I rise in strong support of the rule and the resolution of the 
Committee on the Budget. After years of deficit spending, we can begin 
laying the groundwork today for an honest balanced budget, while at the 
same time providing permanent tax relief, reforming Medicare, achieving 
significant entitlement savings, investing in domestic priorities, and 
making sure that the Government lives within its means.
  Unlike the budgets of the past, this resolution is based on steadily 
declining deficits every year until 2002, when we can expect a budget 
surplus. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, a surplus is actually within reach. 
I know it is hard to believe, especially when we consider that the 
Federal Government has not balanced the budget in nearly a generation.
  That is simply a crime, Mr. Speaker, a crime against our children and 
our grandchildren who deserve a sound financial future. We have to stop 
robbing them of the opportunities and prosperity that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been an advocate for victims of crime almost my 
entire professional life. I think it is time to consider another kind 
of victims' rights, the right of future generations who will be 
crippled by higher taxes and a crushing debt unless we commit ourselves 
today to a balanced budget.
  Getting to where we are has not been easy. The political rhetoric and 
demagoguing has been almost overwhelming at times. But we listened to 
the American people and we persevered. I congratulate my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. John Kasich, for his years and years of hard 
work, for his commitment to the good of the country, and for his 
determination in working to make this a bipartisan agreement.
  Nobody would say that this is perfect. All of us could improve upon 
it. However, it gives us so much. So, to paraphrase an old friend of 
all of ours, Bob Michel, let us not kill this good product with 1,000 
points of spite. Let us not let the perfect become the enemy of the 
good.
  Under the terms of this fair and balanced rule we will debate a 
variety of budget proposals, each reflecting its own goals and spending 
priorities. The different sponsors deserve credit for their hard work, 
but let me caution the Members, under this rule there are no free 
votes. There is no room for political cover. Every vote counts, because 
whichever measure passes here will be the one we must all live with. 
Let us not undermine the hard work of the House and the Senate and the 
administration, the weeks of negotiation that have produced this very 
delicate win-win agreement. The country deserves no less.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this responsible rule. They should make 
their vote count today and support the fine work of the Committee on 
the Budget. Let us give the next generation of Americans the kind of 
future they deserve.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I gather that the various factions on the other side of 
the aisle have now come to a resolution and have decided that the Minge 
amendment will not be made in order under this rule. So we are now 
proceeding to the consideration of the rule as originally presented to 
this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I share the commitment of many here today 
to achieve a balanced budget, but it is not just enough to balance the 
budget for a nanosecond. It is a question of whether or not we have a 
plan that will balance the budget and keep it balanced.
  Over the last few weeks, and certainly I know that will be true 
throughout the rest of today, there is a lot of backslapping. There is 
a debate about who is the greatest statesman for putting this agreement 
together. A lot of popping of champagne corks; I believe I am going to 
hold my champagne until the budget is actually in balance, because 
there is nothing very new about people promising to balance the budget.
  And as my colleague from Texas just pointed out, one of the problems 
that we have here today with what has essentially been a budget 
agreement where until the last few days we did not have any of the 
blanks filled in and it was based on the theme song from the Caribbean, 
do not worry, be happy, about this budget, I am happy about having a 
balanced budget agreement. But I am a little worried about whether the 
promise of that balanced budget is ever going to be achieved.
  The best way to achieve it is not in listening to one person extol 
the great virtues of another but in having a meaningful enforcement 
mechanism. What the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] just pointed out 
is that today the Republicans have rejected any kind of effective 
enforcement mechanism. One was offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Minge] and the so-called blue dog Democrats. Another was offered 
by myself. It is very simple, one paragraph, a sunset provision, using 
the sunset approach that we have implemented in Texas to say, we will 
limit the authorization for any of this new entitlement spending that 
President Clinton wanted and we will limit the tax reductions that the 
Republicans and President Clinton wanted also to a 5-year period.
  If we are balancing the budget, if we are getting the deficit under 
control, there will be nothing easier than for this Congress to 
reauthorize them. But to move forward with this budget resolution 
without an effective enforcement mechanism does not ensure the American 
people a true balanced budget. It only ensures more talk of a balanced 
budget that may or may not achieve the eventual objective. This sunset 
provision was described by Republicans in the committee as prudent, as 
reasonable, and it ought to be adopted today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to briefly respond.
  The gentleman states that Members that are supporting this historic 
document before us which does balance the budget are somehow extolling 
our own personal virtues. I do not think it is we that are extolling 
our own personal virtues. I think it is the American people, because 
the American people spoke very strongly in wanting this Congress to get 
along with each other and wanting this Congress to get along with the 
President.
  I have to commend the President for sitting down and working, I think 
sincerely, in trying to bring an agreement to this floor. Certainly it 
is not what I like. It is not what the left wing likes. But it is an 
agreement. It is probably the only agreement that we could ever reach 
because we had to bring both ends together in middle and that is always 
very difficult. That is why we ought to be supporting this agreement 
here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is 
going to talk about something that is near and dear to my heart and to 
the heart of the American people who have worked hard all their lives 
to save and invest their money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kingston]. The Chair would advise that 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] had 13 minutes remaining, 
before yielding to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H2951]]

  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Glens Falls for 
yielding me the time and for his kind remarks about a very important 
part of this budget package. I believe that in large part, due to the 
efforts of Democrats and Republicans in this House who cosponsored H.R. 
14, which we introduced on the opening day of the 105th Congress, to 
take the top rate on capital gains from 28-to-14 percent, due to the 
fact that we have bipartisan support, I believe we have been able to 
successfully get President Clinton in this agreement to come on board 
finally in support of a broad-based, across-the-board reduction in 
capital gains. We are hoping very much that we will be able to see it 
at 14 percent. I am happy that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is 
trying to pursue that direction of reducing that top rate as low as we 
can get it. Many of us believe that the top rate on capital gains 
should be zero, there should be no tax on it whatsoever.
  This is the single most important part of this tax package. Why? 
Because the argument that we have so often heard in the past, that a 
capital gains tax rate reduction is nothing but a tax cut for the rich, 
is totally false. I am happy to say that Democrats are finally joining 
Republicans in recognizing that. Why is that no longer the case? Well, 
we have done a study that shows that, if we had around a 14-or-15 
percent top tax on capital gains taxes, we would in fact increase the 
average take-home pay for the working, average working family by $1,500 
per year.
  We also know that, of the 90 million-some-odd families in this 
country, as my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], who is 
a cosponsor of H.R. 14, has said repeatedly, 63 million own mutual 
funds. So we have many people who have investments. We have literally 
$8 trillion that is locked in today, $8 trillion that is locked in 
because that tax is so high. What we need to also look at is the fact 
that 40 percent of those realized gains are held by people with incomes 
of less than $50,000 a year.
  Our goal with this budget is of course to balance the budget. There 
is no better way to boost the flow of revenues to the Treasury than to 
cut the top rate on capital gains. In fact, we found in our study that 
over a 7-year period we could boost revenues by $211 billion. There is 
a lot of talk about that so-called windfall that came from the CBO 
letter with that $125 billion that came in. Quite frankly, reducing the 
top rate on capital would spur economic growth. It is great that we are 
pushing at well over 5 percent now. But these assumptions are based on 
a 2.1-percent growth rate. If we reduce the top rate on capital 
significantly, we can see a growth rate that is even stronger than 
that.
  While we hear about uncertainty in the future economically, this cut 
in the capital gains tax rate could in fact play a role in ensuring 
that we do not go into economic recession. So I rise in strong support 
of the rule and in support of this package. Then we are going to work 
hard in a bipartisan way to cut the tax on capital gains.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question. I will 
include for the Record the amendment I would offer to the rule if the 
previous question is defeated.
  The amendment would make in order two additional amendments to the 
budget agreement, by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Both these amendments are attempts 
to ensure that a balanced budget plan actually achieves balance. The 
Minge substitute includes enforcement provisions to force the Congress 
to stay on course over the next 5 years. The Doggett amendment 
precludes enactment of tax cuts before the budget is actually in 
balance. The House should be given the opportunity to vote on these 
amendments. If we defeat the previous question, the House will ensure 
that we will have full and fair debate on the balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question.
  I include for the Record the amendment I would offer to the rule if 
the previous question is defeated. The amendment would make in order 
two additional amendments to the budget agreement by Representatives 
Minge and Doggett. Both these amendments are attempts to ensure that a 
balanced budget plan actually achieves balance. The Minge substitute 
includes enforcement provisions to force the Congress to stay on course 
over the next 5 years. The Doggett amendment precludes enactment of tax 
cuts before the budget is actually in balance. The House should be 
given the opportunity to vote on these amendments. If we defeat the 
previous question, the House will ensure that we will have full and 
fair debate on the balanced budget.
  The amendment referred to is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 152

       On page 2, line 21, after ``XXIII'' strike ``.'' and insert 
     ``, and the amendments designated in section 4 of this 
     resolution.''
       On page 3, line 2, after ``2'' insert ``and section 4''.
       On page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the following 
     amendments:
       (1) an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be 
     offered by Representative Minge.
       (2) an amendment to be offered by Representative Doggett.
                                  ____


                         Minge Amendment No. 1

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999 
     through 2002 are hereby set forth.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,198,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,241,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,285,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,343,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,564,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $11,083,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$21,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$22,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$19,871,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,385,086,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,440,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,486,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,520,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,551,837,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,371,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,424,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,468,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,500,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,516,298,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $172,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $182,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $183,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $157,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,734,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,592,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,834,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,081,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,298,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,474,400,000,000.
       (6) Direct Loan Obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.
       (7) Primary Loan Guarantee Commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,978,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $588,000,000.

[[Page H2952]]

       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,771,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,418,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,110,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,571,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,558,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,569,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,981,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,751,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,812,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,882,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,528,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,013,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,862,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,668,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,446,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,293,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,048,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,867,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,171,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,405,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,702,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,963,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,720,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,892,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,294,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,664,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,494,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,108,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $920,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,299,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,821,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,133,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,541,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,680,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,933,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,256,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,357,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,303,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,247,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.

[[Page H2953]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,387,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,902,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,986,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,350,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,429,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $2,475,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,062,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,335,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $21,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,728,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,959,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,931,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,316,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,804,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,915,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,898,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,136,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,692,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,764,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,548,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $225,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,537,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,781,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,769,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,758,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays $258,064,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,161,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,264,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,239,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,524,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,196,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,866,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,043,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,398,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,337,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,715,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,949,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,168,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,486,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,565,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,719,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,609,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,976,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,240,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,901,000,0000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

[[Page H2954]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,879,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,959,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,363,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,727,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,131,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,549,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,567,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,867,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,659,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,754,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,841,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,949,000.000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,937,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,151,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,124,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $0.
                 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     two separate reconciliation bills: the first for entitlement 
     reforms and the second for tax relief. In the event Senate 
     procedures preclude the consideration of two separate bills, 
     this section would permit the consideration of one omnibus 
     reconciliation bill.
       (b) Submissions.--
       (1) Entitlement reforms.--Not later than June 12, 1997, the 
     House committees named in subsection (c) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (2) Tax relief and miscellaneous reforms.--Not later than 
     June 13, 1997, the House committees named in subsection (d) 
     shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee on 
     the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (c) Instructions Relating to Entitlement Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--The House 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: -$8,435,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, -$5,091,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and -$50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (3) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee does not exceed: $393,770,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $507,315,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,619,820,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     such that the total level of direct spending for that 
     committee does not exceed: $17,718,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $18,167,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $106,050,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) Committee on government reform and oversight.--(A) The 
     House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     would reduce the deficit by: $214,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, $621,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,829,000,000 in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $18,287,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,483,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $107,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,845,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $140,197,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,463,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,377,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,195,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total 
     level of revenues for that committee is not less than: 
     $1,172,136,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,382,679,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,493,796,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (d) Instructions Relating to Tax Relief and Miscellaneous 
     Reforms.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the

[[Page H2955]]

     total level of direct spending for that committee does not 
     exceed: $34,571,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $37,008,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $211,443,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking and financial services.--(A) The 
     House Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: -$8,435,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, -$5,091,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and -$50,306,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (3) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending such that the total level of direct 
     spending for that committee does not exceed: $393,770,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 1998, $507,315,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2002, and $2,619,820,000,000 in outlays in 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     such that the total level of direct spending for that 
     committee does not exceed: $17,718,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 1998, $18,167,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2002, and $106,050,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002.
       (5) Committee on government reform and oversight.--(A) The 
     House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $68,975,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $81,896,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $443,061,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     would reduce the deficit by: $214,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1998, $621,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $1,829,000,000 in fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending such that the total level of direct spending 
     for that committee does not exceed: $18,287,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 1998, $17,483,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $107,615,000,000 in outlays in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total 
     level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed: 
     $22,444,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1998, 
     $24,845,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $140,197,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee 
     on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for 
     that committee does not exceed: $397,463,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 1998, $506,377,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $2,621,195,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total 
     level of revenues for that committee is not less than: 
     $1,164,736,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1998, 
     $1,362,179,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $7,408,796,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``direct spending'' has the meaning given to such term in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (f) Flexibility in Carrying Out Children's Health 
     Initiative.--If the Committees on Commerce and Ways and Means 
     report recommendations pursuant to their reconciliation 
     instructions that provide an initiative for children's health 
     that would increase the deficit by more than $2.3 billion for 
     fiscal year 1998, by more than $3.9 billion for fiscal year 
     2002, and by more than $16 billion for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002, the committees shall be deemed to 
     not have complied with their reconciliation instructions 
     pursuant to section 310(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to adjust the 
     appropriate budgetary levels to accommodate legislation 
     increasing spending from the highway trust fund on surface 
     transportation and highway safety above the levels assumed in 
     this resolution if such legislation is deficit neutral.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality Requirement.--(1) In order to 
     receive the adjustments specified in subsection (c), a bill 
     reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure that provides new budget authority above the 
     levels assumed in this resolution for programs authorized out 
     of the highway trust fund must be deficit neutral.
       (2) A deficit-neutral bill must meet the following 
     conditions:
       (A) The amount of new budget authority provided for 
     programs authorized out of the highway trust fund must be in 
     excess of $25.949 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 1998, $25.464 billion in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2002, and $127.973 billion in new budget authority for 
     the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (B) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority set forth in subparagraph (A) must be offset 
     for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 2002, and for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002. For the sole purpose of 
     estimating the amount of outlays flowing from excess new 
     budget authority under this section, it shall be assumed that 
     such excess new budget authority would have an obligation 
     limitation sufficient to accommodate that new budget 
     authority.
       (C) The outlays estimated to flow from the excess new 
     budget authority must be offset by (i) other direct spending 
     or revenue provisions within that transportation bill, (ii) 
     the net reduction in other direct spending and revenue 
     legislation that is enacted during this Congress after the 
     date of adoption of this resolution and before such 
     transportation bill is reported (in excess of the levels 
     assumed in this resolution), or (iii) a combination of the 
     offsets specified in clauses (i) and (ii).
       (D) As used in this section, the term ``direct spending'' 
     has the meaning given to such term in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       (c) Revised Levels.--(1) When the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure reports a bill (or when a 
     conference report thereon is filed) meeting the conditions 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2), the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget shall increase the allocation of new budget 
     authority to that committee by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided in that bill (and that is above the levels 
     set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A)) for programs authorized 
     out of the highway trust fund.
       (2) After the enactment of the transportation bill 
     described in paragraph (1) and upon the reporting of a 
     general, supplemental or continuing resolution making 
     appropriations by the Committee on Appropriations (or upon 
     the filing of a conference report thereon) establishing an 
     obligation limitation above the levels specified in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) (at a level sufficient to obligate some 
     or all of the budget authority specified in paragraph (1)), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall increase 
     the allocation and aggregate levels of outlays to that 
     committee for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by the appropriate 
     amount.
       (d) Revisions.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and 
     aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (e) Reversals.--If any legislation referred to in this 
     section is not enacted into law, then the chairman of the 
     House Committee on the Budget shall, as soon as practicable, 
     reverse adjustments made under this section for such 
     legislation and have such adjustments published in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (f) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.
       (g) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``highway trust fund'' refers to the following budget 
     accounts (or any successor accounts):
       (1) 69-8083-0-7-401 (Federal-Aid Highways).
       (2) 69-8191-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Capital Fund).
       (3) 69-8350-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Formula Grants).
       (4) 69-8016-0-7-401 (National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration-Operations and Research).
       (5) 69-8020-0-7-401 (Highway Traffic Safety Grants).
       (6) 69-8048-0-7-401 (National Motor Carrier Safety 
     Program).

     SEC. 302. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Budgetary treatment.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, no amounts realized from the sale of an asset shall be 
     scored with respect to the level of budget authority, 
     outlays, or revenues if such sale would cause an increase in 
     the deficit as calculated pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (2) Calculation of net present value.--The deficit estimate 
     of an asset sale shall be the net present value of the cash 
     flow from--
       (A) proceeds from the asset sale;
       (B) future receipts that would be expected from continued 
     ownership of the asset by the Government; and
       (C) expected future spending by the Government at a level 
     necessary to continue to operate and maintain the asset to 
     generate the receipts estimated pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (c) Treatment of Loan Assets.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan 
     shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990.
       (d) Determination of Budgetary Levels.--For the purposes of 
     this section, budgetary levels shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the House Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 303. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Committee Allocations.--In the House, after the 
     Committee on Commerce

[[Page H2956]]

     and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure report 
     a bill (or a conference report thereon is filed) to reform 
     the Superfund program to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous 
     waste sites, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall submit revised allocations and budget aggregates to 
     carry out this section by an amount not to exceed the excess 
     subject to the limitation. These revisions shall be 
     considered for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 as the allocations and aggregates contained in this 
     resolution.
       (b) Limitations.--The adjustments made under this section 
     shall not exceed--
       (1) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 1998 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (2) $200 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2002 
     and the estimated outlays flowing therefrom.
       (3) $1 billion in budget authority for the period of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002 and the estimated outlays flowing 
     therefrom.
       (c) Readjustments.--In the House, any adjustments made 
     under this section for any appropriation measure may be 
     readjusted if that measure is not enacted into law.

     SEC. 304. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR LAND ACQUISITIONS AND 
                   EXCHANGES.

       (a) Allocation by Chairman.--In the House, upon the 
     reporting of a bill by the Committee on Appropriations (or 
     upon the filing of a conference report thereon) providing up 
     to $165 million in outlays for Federal land acquisitions and 
     to finalize priority Federal land exchanges for fiscal year 
     1998 (assuming $700 million in outlays over 5 fiscal years), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall allocate 
     that amount of outlays and the corresponding amount of budget 
     authority.
       (b) Treatment of Allocations in the House.--In the House, 
     for purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     allocations made under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     made pursuant to section 602(a)(1) of that Act and shall be 
     deemed to be a separate suballocation for purposes of the 
     application of section 302(f) of that Act as modified by 
     section 602(c) of that Act.
                 TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Baselines are projections of future spending if 
     existing policies remain unchanged.
       (2) Under baseline assumptions, spending automatically 
     rises with inflation even if such increases are not mandated 
     under existing law.
       (3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased against 
     policies that would reduce the projected growth in spending 
     because such policies are portrayed as spending reductions 
     from an increasing baseline.
       (4) The baseline concept has encouraged Congress to 
     abdicate its constitutional obligation to control the public 
     purse for those programs which are automatically funded.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     baseline budgeting should be replaced with a budgetary model 
     that requires justification of aggregate funding levels and 
     maximizes congressional and executive accountability for 
     Federal spending.

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The Congress and the President should enact a law which 
     creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within 30 
     years.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding President's Submission to 
     Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) The President's annual budget submission to Congress 
     should include a plan for repayment of Federal debt beyond 
     the year 2002, including the money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.
       (2) The plan should specifically explain how the President 
     would cap spending growth at a level one percentage point 
     lower than projected growth in revenues.
       (3) If spending growth were held to a level one percentage 
     point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the 
     Federal debt could be repaid within 30 years.

     SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMISSION ON LONG-TERM 
                   BUDGETARY PROBLEMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) achieving a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 is only 
     the first step necessary to restore our Nation's economic 
     prosperity;
       (2) the imminent retirement of the baby-boom generation 
     will greatly increase the demand for government services;
       (3) this burden will be borne by a relatively smaller work 
     force resulting in an unprecedented intergenerational 
     transfer of financial resources;
       (4) the rising demand for retirement and medical benefits 
     will quickly jeopardize the solvency of the medicare, social 
     security, and Federal retirement trust funds; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     marginal tax rates would have to increase by 50 percent over 
     the next 5 years to cover the long-term projected costs of 
     retirement and health benefits.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to create a commission to 
     assess long-term budgetary problems, their implications for 
     both the baby-boom generation and tomorrow's workforce, and 
     make such recommendations as it deems appropriate to ensure 
     our Nation's future prosperity.

     SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CORPORATE WELFARE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the functional 
     levels and aggregates in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) the Federal Government supports profit-making 
     enterprises and industries through billions of dollars in 
     payments, benefits, and programs;
       (2) many of these subsidies do not serve a clear and 
     compelling public interest;
       (3) corporate subsidies frequently provide unfair 
     competitive advantages to certain industries and industry 
     segments; and
       (4) at a time when millions of Americans are being asked to 
     sacrifice in order to balance the budget, the corporate 
     sector should bear its share of the burden.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     legislation should be enacted to--
       (1) eliminate the most egregious corporate subsidies; and
       (2) create a commission to recommend the elimination of 
     Federal payments, benefits, and programs which predominantly 
     benefit a particular industry or segment of an industry, 
     rather than provide a clear and compelling public benefit, 
     and include a fast-track process for the consideration of 
     those recommendations.

     SEC. 405. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BALANCED BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that reconciliation legislation 
     considered pursuant to this legislation must include 
     enforcement procedures to ensure that the Budget of the 
     United States Government does reach balance by 2002 and 
     remain in balance thereafter. Such language should--
       (1) set nominal targets for spending, revenues, and 
     deficits for each year of the next 10 years;
       (2) require that the President propose a budget that 
     complies with the spending, revenue, and deficit targets in 
     each year or propose to change the targets, and require that 
     any budget resolution considered by the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate comply with the spending, 
     revenue, and deficit targets in each year or recommend 
     changes to those targets;
       (3) include all portions of the budget and apply such 
     enforcement proportionally to the specific parts of the 
     budget that caused the deficit to exceed the target in any 
     year. This should be accomplished through a combination of--
       (A) extension of the caps for discretionary spending 
     enforced by sequestration through fiscal year 2002;
       (B) global caps for total entitlement spending and specific 
     caps within the global caps for large entitlement programs, 
     with sequestration applied to those programs or categories 
     that caused outlays to exceed the caps;
       (C) a requirement that tax cuts be phased in contingent on 
     meeting the revenue targets in the agreement;
       (4) allow adjustments to spending caps and revenue and 
     deficit targets for changes in actual economic conditions to 
     avoid forcing policy changes due directly and exclusively to 
     changes in economic conditions;
       (5) prevent the use of emergencies to evade the enforcement 
     mechanism by establishing procedures to budget for and 
     control emergency spending; and
       (6) if the actual deficit is below the target in any year, 
     lock in such budget savings for deficit and debt reduction.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H. Con. Res. 84 Offered by Messrs. Doggett and Weygand

       At the end of the concurrent resolution, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . PROTECTION OF BALANCED BUDGET.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, to assure that 
     neither the tax cuts nor the spending increases in this 
     resolution explode in cost, endangering the balanced budget 
     promised by 2002 or the ability to maintain balance 
     thereafter, any provision of law affecting revenues or 
     authorizing spending for new entitlement initiatives assumed 
     in this resolution should sunset and cease to be effective 
     within five years, unless subsequently reauthorized by law.


                        explanation of amendment

       The amendment addresses the possibility that exploding tax 
     cuts and new spending in the agreement could jeopardize the 
     balanced budget by stating the ``sense of Congress'' that any 
     tax-law changes and new entitlement spending enacted pursuant 
     to the agreement should sunset and cease to be effective for 
     only five years, unless subsequently reauthorized by 
     Congress.


        the vote on the previous question: what it really means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To

[[Page H2957]]

     defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a 
     chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites 
     the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that 
     ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the 
     previous question passes the control of the resolution to the 
     opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 
     1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule 
     resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a 
     member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, 
     asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. 
     Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been 
     refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had 
     asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is 
     entitled to the first recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is the one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding this time to me.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  We all should continue to be concerned about the debt of the Federal 
Government. We continue to increase the debt subject to the debt limit, 
and I would just remind Members that in 1979, when we started the so-
called rule 49, the Gephardt rule, that says we are automatically going 
to increase the debt when we pass the budget resolution, at that time 
we had a debt of $829 billion, which was 33 percent of GDP, of gross 
domestic product. Today the debt is $5.2 trillion, almost 70 percent of 
GDP.
  When we brag about being the shining knight on the white horse that 
is bringing the deficit down, I would just like to call to the 
attention of my colleagues what has really brought the deficit down. We 
had huge tax increases in 1990 and again in 1993, but an economic 
system that surged ahead. Our free enterprise capitalistic system 
continued to expand revenues while spending continued to increase 
faster than inflation. But in the process, the deficit has gone down.
  This budget proposal, I would have written to have tax decreases that 
spur economic growth and job creation more than we do in this proposal. 
But I thank the committee for including in this proposal the waiving of 
rule 49, the so-called Gephardt rule, so that we can have an up or down 
vote on the debt limit that is so important to our economic future.
  I thank the Rules Committee for supporting my House Resolution 30 at 
least temporarily dispensing with rule 49 in this rule. Now House rule 
49 will not apply to the spending in this budget resolution.
  House rule 49, the so-called Gephardt rule was passed in 1979 in 
order to allow Members to avoid a separate embarrassing vote to raise 
the debt ceiling.
  During the debate, those in favor of the Gephardt rule argued that 
spending determined the need for borrowing and therefore a separate 
vote was not needed.
  Opponents, however, argued that a separate vote on the debt ceiling 
was still needed because it was the only time the House took to reflect 
on the increasing national debt and its impact on future generations.
  Since the imposition of the Gephardt rule, the debt has increased. 
The arguments against the rule are stronger than ever because of the 
increasing national debt.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Debt as percentage
          Fiscal year             Gross Federal debt        of GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979...........................  $829.47 billion....  33.2 percent
1996...........................  5.182 trillion.....  69.2 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Gephardt rule treats Congress' constitutional power to borrow as 
intermixed with its power to spend. This violates the spirit of the 
constitution which lists these powers as separate and distinct. As a 
result of the Gephardt rule, Federal borrowing is no longer seen as an 
emergency power for times of depression or war, but just another, 
natural part of the Federal budget process.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I also want to thank the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for his persistence and 
commitment to a balanced budget. I think I can say that he is one of 
the true taxpayer heroes in this body, and we would not be here today 
if it had not been for his valiant efforts and some of his earlier 
authorship of some very important budget work, which I was pleased to 
join with.
  Two and a half years ago at the start of the 104th Congress, a new 
majority went to work to balance the budget and provide real tax relief 
for the American people. Our new majority pledged to save the Medicare 
Program, rein in out-of-control spending and, in a nutshell, bring 
fiscal sanity back to our Nation.
  The naysayers scoffed and the big government liberals said, you 
cannot do that. They laughed in derision, they called it a radical idea 
that could not be done without starving the children and slashing 
Social Security. Our President not only refused to endorse the balanced 
budget, he repudiated it through his own budget request. Despite this 
hostile opposition, we remained steadfast in our commitment and pushed 
forward to get the job done.
  What a difference a few years makes. This budget resolution locks in 
the President and the Congress to a real balanced budget in 5 years. 
Like most compromises, it is not perfect. As a member of the Kerrey 
commission, I am concerned that we rely on reductions to health care 
providers, rather than expanding choice and competition, and going 
after the cost drivers in our effort to save Medicare.
  I am also anxious about the lack of eliminations in the discretionary 
portion of the budget. We cannot be satisfied with trimming back on 
wasteful spending here and there. We must insist on ripping out bad 
programs by the roots. I intend to continue my efforts to eliminate 
these wasteful programs as they are identified during the 
appropriations process. In the past few years I have offered a list of 
specifics cutting hundreds of billions, and I will do so again this 
year.
  But I have always felt that we cannot afford to make the perfect the 
enemy of the good. And for those who would still say that we have not 
made significant progress, I would encourage them to leaf through this 
document, the fiscal year 1996 budget of the United States Government. 
This is the President's budget request for 1996, just 2 years ago. The 
President's vision then, $200 billion a year deficits as far as the eye 
could see into the future. That is the best they could do.
  Now, let us move fast forward to today's budget resolution. Not only 
have we agreed to a balanced budget, we have provided overdue relief 
for millions of American taxpayers. We have offered another vision for 
America, one where we pay our own bills, we live within our means and 
we reduce the tax burden on our producers. Now, thankfully, the 
President has joined us and endorsed that vision.
  I urge support for this fair and appropriate rule and for the 
balanced budget amendment. America is ready and waiting. This is good 
news.

[[Page H2958]]

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and since the gentleman from Texas has yielded back all of his time, I 
will be extremely brief.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken by some of the statements from the 
other side of the aisle in opposing this vital piece of legislation 
that is on the floor today. As I said earlier, this agreement, this 
budget agreement, this historic budget agreement, is going to save $600 
billion. That is not $600 million, Mr. Speaker, that is $600 billion 
over the next 5 years.
  There is going to be discretionary spending cuts in various programs 
that is going to be substantial; and, in addition to that, there is 
going to be meaningful tax cuts, especially a capital gains tax cut, 
that will benefit people like a couple I know that have worked all 
their lives for Sears Roebuck.
  They work at a nominal salary, Sears Roebuck does not pay huge 
salaries, but these people have stock options. They have saved their 
money and saved their stock all of these years, for 35 years, and now 
their total equity is tied up in this stock and all of the increased 
value that stock has today. Those people should be able to sell that 
stock and they should be able to do it without giving the Government 
half of the money.
  That is why we are going to reduce the tax rate on capital gains in 
this country. We are going to reduce the estate tax for people that 
have worked all their lives, that have saved for their children and, 
now, if they are going to pass on, they ought to be able to give that 
estate to their children without the Government taking half of that 
money. I mean what is America all about, if it is not to reward those 
of us that have worked hard all of our lives?
  That is what this debate is all about here today. So I will ask all 
my colleagues to come over here and vote for the previous question, 
vote for the rule, and then vote for this agreement, which is a good 
agreement for the American people and American families in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  Without objection, each of the postponed votes on the motions to 
suspend the rules will be 5-minute votes immediately after disposition 
of this rule.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 200, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No 140]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Brown (FL)
     Fowler
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Moran (VA)
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Waxman
     White
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1524

  Ms. ESHOO, and Messrs. SHERMAN, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, MOAKLEY, 
and SPRATT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kingston) 
announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 278, 
nays 142, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page H2959]]

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               YEAS--278

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--142

     Allen
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Brown (FL)
     Coburn
     Fowler
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Waxman
     White
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1533

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________