[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.
____________________