[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3078-H3093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET PROCESS REFORM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 499

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 853) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to provide for joint resolutions on the budget, reserve 
     funds for emergency spending, strengthened enforcement of 
     budgetary decisions, increased accountability for Federal 
     spending, accrual budgeting for Federal insurance programs, 
     mitigation of the bias in the budget process toward higher 
     spending, modifications in paygo requirements when there is 
     an on-budget surplus, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 
     minutes, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Budget, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Rules, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendments recommended by the Committee on the Budget, 
     the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Appropriations 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 4397. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. 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 questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); pending which I yield 
myself such time as I

[[Page H3079]]

may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate on this subject only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate structured rule for 
consideration of the Comprehensive Budget Reform Act of 1999. As one of 
the authors of the underlying bill, I can tell my colleagues that great 
pains were taken to accommodate the concerns of our House committees 
and Members in this legislation.
  In fashioning this rule, we have taken similar care to ensure, as 
best as possible, a nonpartisan substantive debate about our budget 
process. Leaving aside our budget policy differences, and I emphasize 
policy, we do hope to come to a consensus on an improved, outcome-
neutral budget process.
  The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, divided fairly 
between the three committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Budget, 
the Committee on Rules, and Committee on Appropriations. The rule makes 
in order seven amendments from both sides of the aisle. Three of those 
amendments are attempts to put a section back into the bill that were 
dropped at the request of committees. One aims to strike altogether the 
linchpin of the bill, the Joint Budget Resolution. So I think that the 
Committee on Rules has clearly erred on the side of the inclusion of 
the amendment process, if we have erred at all on this.
  Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress, I suspect I was like most 
Americans out there watching the debate on budget process. I knew 
little about how the budget process worked in Washington, and what I 
did know did not make a whole lot of sense.
  Since becoming the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and 
Budget Process nearly 6 years ago, I had a chance to learn a great deal 
about the inner workings of our congressional budget process. I have 
really been down in the weeds on a lot of the issues and listened to 
the best and the brightest budget experts we can find and all their 
green eye shade associates who have come forward and tried to help us 
along in this process.

                              {time}  1300

  I have also lived through a number of our annual budget battles, 
which have not been particularly pretty, as many will recall. Through 
these experiences, I have arrived at one simple truth about our budget 
process. The best reforms in the world are meaningless if at the end of 
the day, Members are not committed to enforcing them. So enforcement is 
a big issue, and we have certainly provided for it in this rule when we 
get to the debate.
  H.R. 853 recognizes this is a reality. It properly encourages the 
President and Congress to agree on a joint budget resolution, but 
provides the flexibility of a fallback in years they elect not to do 
that, although we create the incentives to do that. We get real about 
budgeting for emergencies by adding a rainy day reserve fund, but we do 
so in a way that is workable and serious.
  Instead of creating rigid procedural sticks that will be ignored, we 
encourage committees and Members to be better stewards of their 
programs and agencies under their jurisdiction. In Florida, we believe 
in sunshine, and I am hopeful a little sunshine will enhance oversight 
and accountability inside the Beltway as well.
  Along those lines, I think that the amendment of the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), to 
convert the current annual budget and appropriations process to a 
biennial one is a particularly good fit for this bill. By structuring 
our calendar to prefer budget matters in the first year and oversight 
in the second, we will create an atmosphere where both responsibilities 
show signs of improvement. It is a good amendment, and I hope it is 
adopted once we consider it.
  Let me be very clear, H.R. 853 is not a panacea for all that ails us, 
and it is certainly not foolproof. We will still have our policy 
differences and we will still use, possibly abuse, the budget process 
to advance individual causes. But this is a good bipartisan work 
product, primarily because it does not attempt to solve every problem.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin), from opposite sides of the aisle, should be commended for 
resisting the temptation to use this vehicle for partisan manipulation. 
While H.R. 853 has many parents, I would like to congratulate them in 
particular for their leadership and resolve throughout the last few 
years. As I say, this has been in the works for a long time.
  Whatever our view on the individual budget process reform pieces that 
are going to be offered up, we should be able to support this rule. All 
of the major substantive amendments presented to us have been made in 
order. We have not gamed the system to give preference to any 
controversial provision. We have taken the guidance of the Speaker, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), to heart and let the House work 
its will on a nonpartisan basis. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

  Biennial Budgeting Amendment to H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget 
                       Process Reform Act of 1999


                       section-by-section summary

  Offered by Reps. Dreier, Luther, Regula, Hall (OH), Bass, McCarthy 
                       (MO), Goss, Condit, et al.

       ``To provide for a biennial budget and appropriations 
     process and to enhance programmatic oversight and the 
     management, efficiency, and performance of the Federal 
     Government.''
       Short Summary: Establishes a two-year budgeting and 
     appropriations cycle and timetable. Defines the budget 
     biennium as the two consecutive fiscal years beginning on 
     October 1 of any odd-numbered year. Sets forth a special 
     timetable for any first session that begins in any year 
     during which the term of a President begins (except one who 
     starts a second consecutive term).

          Adds a New Title VII Entitled ``Biennial Budgeting''

       Section 701. Findings. Outlines nine congressional findings 
     on the budget process and biennial budgeting.
       Section 702. Revision of Timetable. Amends section 300 of 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     to revise the timetable of the congressional budget process 
     to reflect a biennial budget schedule. The first session of 
     any Congress is primarily devoted to the consideration of the 
     budget resolution, the regular appropriations bills, and any 
     necessary reconciliation legislation. In general, the revised 
     timetable is similar to the current timetable except that 
     most of the milestones only apply to the first session of a 
     Congress. The timetable is modified to extend the deadline 
     for completion of the biennial budget resolution to May 15th. 
     The revised timetable contains only three deadlines for the 
     second session: (1) The President must submit a mid-biennium 
     budget review to Congress by February 15th; (2) the 
     Congressional Budget Office must submit its annual report to 
     the Budget Committees of the House and the Senate no later 
     than six weeks after the President submits the budget review; 
     and (3) Congress must complete action on bills and 
     resolutions authorizing new budget authority for the 
     succeeding biennium by the last day of the session. This 
     section also creates a new section 300(b) of the Budget Act 
     that establishes a special timetable for the submission and 
     consideration of a budget in the case of any first session of 
     Congress that begins in any year during which the term of a 
     President (except a President who succeeds himself) begins. 
     Generally, the budget deadlines are extended by 6 weeks to 
     give a new President more time to prepare and submit the 
     budget.
       Section 701. Amendments to the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Section 703(a) amends 
     section 2(2) of the Budget Act relating to the ``Declaration 
     of Purposes'' of the Budget Act to account for the 
     congressional determination biennially of the appropriate 
     level of Federal revenues and expenditures.
       Section 703(b)(1) amends the definition of a budget 
     resolution in section 3(4) of the Budget Act to reflect its 
     application to a biennium as opposed to a fiscal year.
       Section 703(b)(2) amends section 3 of the Budget Act by 
     adding a new paragraph (13) to define the term biennium as 
     ``the period of two consecutive fiscal years beginning on 
     October 1 of any odd-number year.''
       Section 703(c) amends the Budget Act to make the budget 
     resolution a biennial concurrent resolution on the budget.
       Section 703(c)(1) amends section 301(a) of the Budget Act 
     regarding the required contents of the budget resolution to 
     conform its application to the biennium beginning on October 
     1 of each odd-numbered year and its consideration to the 
     biennial timetable for completion, which is by May 15 of each 
     odd-numbered year.
       Section 703(c)(2) amends action 301(b) of the Budget Act to 
     ensure that the additional matters which may be included in 
     the budget resolution apply to a biennium.
       Section 703(c)(3) amends section 301(d) of the Budget Act 
     to conform the submission of committee views and estimates to 
     the Budget Committees to a biennial cycle.
       Section 703(c)(4) amends section 301(e)(1) of the Budget 
     Act to conform the requirements of the Budget Committee's 
     hearings on the

[[Page H3080]]

     budget and the Budget Committee's reporting of the budget 
     resolution to a biennial schedule. The House Budget Committee 
     would report a biennial budget resolution by April 1st of 
     each odd-numbered years.
       Section 703(c)(5) amends section 301(f) of the Budget Act 
     relating to the achievement of goals for reducing 
     unemployment to conform it to a biennial cycle.
       Section 703(c)(6) amends section 301(g)(1) of the Budget 
     Act to conform the provisions relating to the economic 
     assumptions of the budget resolution to a biennial schedule.
       Section 703(c)(7) and 8) amend section 301 to make 
     conforming changes to the section heading and the table of 
     contents of the Budget Act.
       Section 703(d) amends section 302(a) of the Budget Act 
     regarding committee allocations in the budget resolution, to 
     require the conference report on a budget resolution to 
     include an allocation of budget authority and outlays to each 
     committee for each year in the biennium and the total of all 
     fiscal years covered by the resolution as well as makes 
     conforming change to subsections (f) and (g) of section 302 
     to reflect a biennial cycle and the biennial timetable.
       Section 701(e)(1) amends section 303(a) of the Budget Act, 
     which prohibits consideration of legislation, as reported, 
     providing new budget authority, changes in revenues, or 
     changes in the public debt for a fiscal year until the budget 
     resolution for that year has been agreed to, to reflect 
     the application of the budget resolution to a biennium.
       Section 703(e)(2) amends section 303(b) of the Budget Act 
     relating to the exceptions in the House of Representatives 
     from the application of this point of order, to account for a 
     biennial budget cycle. The application of these exceptions 
     are also amended to reflect the special biennial timetable 
     utilized during the first term of a new President.
       Section 703(e)(3) amends section 303(c)(1) of the Budget 
     Act to conform the application of this point of order in the 
     Senate to a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 703(f) amends section 304 of the Budget Act, 
     regarding permissible revisions of budget resolutions, to 
     conform to the biennial budget cycle. This subsection 
     maintains current law which allows Congress to revise the 
     budget resolution at any time during the biennium.
       Section 703(g) amends section 305(a)(3) of the Budget Act, 
     relating to the procedures for consideration of the budget 
     resolution, to conform references to the budget resolution to 
     account for its application to a biennium.
       Section 703(h) amends section 307 of the Budget Act to 
     conform the timetable for completing House Appropriations 
     Committee action on regular appropriations bills by June 10 
     to a biennial cycle. This section also makes conforming 
     amendments to reflect the special biennial timetable utilized 
     during the first term of a new President.
       Section 703(i) amends section 308 of the Budget Act to 
     require the Congressional Budget Office to file quarterly 
     budget reports with the House and Senate Budget Committees. 
     These reports are to compare revenues, spending, and the 
     deficit or surplus for the current fiscal year with the 
     assumptions used in the congressional budget resolution. CBO 
     is also required to make the reports available to other 
     interested parties upon request. These reports will enable 
     the Congress to compare actual budget results to earlier 
     estimates. The frequent periodic reports by CBO on the 
     progress of fiscal policy and economic developments since 
     action on the budget resolution will inform the Congress 
     about current status of the budget and its earlier underlying 
     projections by using updated projects and actual budget 
     figures to date. The reports can also serve to facilitate 
     additional reconciliation legislation (between biennial 
     budget resolutions) as necessary due to changes in the 
     economy or policy emphasis.
       Section 703(j) amends section 309 of the Budget Act to 
     conform the timetable for completion of all House action on 
     the regular appropriation bills before the House adjourns for 
     more than three calendar days during the month of July. This 
     section also makes conforming amendments to reflect the 
     special biennial timetable utilized during the first term of 
     a new President.
       Section 703(k) amends section 310 of the Budget Act to 
     conform the reconciliation process to a biennial budget 
     cycle. It also strikes subsection (f) which currently 
     prohibits the House from adjourning for more than 3 calendar 
     days during the month of July until all required 
     reconciliation legislation is completed. This is necessary to 
     reflect the budget resolutions application to the biennium 
     and the possibility of considering reconciliation legislation 
     during the second session.
       Section 703(l)(1) and (2) amend section 311(a)(1) and (2) 
     of the Budget Act respectively, to prohibit consideration in 
     the House or Senate of any legislation that would cause the 
     total levels of budget authority or total levels of outlays 
     to greater than or that would cause the total level of 
     revenues to be less than those levels set forth in the most 
     recently agreed to budget resolution for either fiscal year 
     of the biennium or for the total of each fiscal year in the 
     biennium and the ensuing fiscal years for which allocations 
     are provided in the budget resolution.
       Section 703(l)(3) amends section 311(a)(3) of the Budget 
     Act to conform the point of order in the Senate against any 
     legislation that would cause a decrease in the Social 
     Security levels set forth in the budget resolution for a 
     biennial budget cycle.
       Section 703(m) amends section 312(c) of the Budget Act to 
     conform the Senate's maximum deficit amount point of order 
     for a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 704. Amendments to the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives. Section 704(a) amends clause 4(a)(1)(A) of 
     rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, relating 
     to the required Appropriations Committee hearings on the 
     President's budget submission, to conform to the biennial 
     timetable.
       Section 704(b) amends clause 4(a)(4) of Rule X of the Rules 
     of the House, relating to the suballocations of the 
     Appropriations Committee, to conform to a biennial budget 
     resolution.
       Section 704(c) amends clause 4(b)(2) of Rule X of the Rules 
     of the House, relating to the Budget Committee's hearings on 
     the budget, to conform to a biennial budget resolution.
       Section 704(d) amends clause 4(b) of Rule X of the Rules of 
     the House to add a new subparagraph (7), to require the House 
     Budget committee to use the second session of each Congress 
     to study issues with long-term budgetary and economic 
     implications, including holding hearings and receiving 
     testimony from committees of jurisdiction to identify problem 
     areas and to report on the results of their oversight 
     activities. The Budget Committee should issue to the Speaker 
     by January 1 of each odd-numbered year a report identifying 
     the key issues facing the Congress in the next biennium.
       Section 704(e) amends clause 11(i) of Rule X of the Rules 
     of the House, relating to the duties of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, to conform to a biennial budget 
     cycle.
       Section 704(f) amends clause 4(e) of Rule X of the Rules of 
     the House, relating to the duties of the standing committees 
     of the House to maximize annual appropriations for the 
     programs and actives within their jurisdictions, to establish 
     a new preference for biennial appropriations.
       Section 704(g) amends clause 4(f) of Rule X of the Rules of 
     the house, relating to the Budget Act responsibilities of the 
     standing committees of the House, to conform to a biennial 
     timetable.
       Section 704(h) amends clause 3(d)(2)(A) of Rule XIII of the 
     Rules of the House, relating to committee cost estimates, to 
     conform to a biennial timetable.
       Section 704(i) amends clause 5(a)(1) of Rule XIII of the 
     Rules of the House, relating to privileged reports from the 
     Appropriations Committee, to conform to a biennial timetable.
       Section 705. Amendments to Title 31, United States Code. 
     Section 705(a) amends section 1101 of Title 31 to define the 
     term biennium as ``the period of two consecutive fiscal years 
     beginning on October 1 of any odd-numbered year.'' This is 
     the same definition given such term in paragraph (11) of 
     section 3 of the Budget Act.
       Section 705(b)(1) amends section 1105 of Title 31 to 
     require that on or before the first Monday in February of 
     each odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by 
     section 300(b) of the Budget Act), the President shall 
     transmit to Congress, the budget for the biennium beginning 
     on October 1 of such calendar year. The President must 
     include a budget message and summary and supporting 
     information with the budget submission.
       Section 705(b)(2) amends section 1105(a)(5) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to expenditures to account for a biennial budget 
     cycle.
       Section 705(b)(3) amends section 1105(a)(6) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to receipts to account for a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(4) amends section 1105(a)(9)(C) of Title 31 
     to conform the required contents of the budget submission 
     with respect to balance statements to account for a biennial 
     budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(5) amends section 1105(a)(12) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to government functions and activities to account for 
     a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(6) amends section 1105(a)(13) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to allowances to account for a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(7) amends section 1105(a)(14) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to allowances for unanticipated and uncontrollable 
     expenditures to account for a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(8) amends section 1105(a)(16) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to tax expenditures to account for a biennial budget 
     cycle.
       Section 705(b)(9) amends section 1105(a)(17) of Title 31 to 
     conform the required contents of the budget submission with 
     respect to estimates for future fiscal years to account for a 
     biennial budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(10) amends section 1105(a)(18) of Title 31 
     to conform the required contents of the budget submission 
     with respect to prior year outlays to account for a biennial 
     budget cycle.
       Section 705(b)(11) amends section 1105(a)(19) of Title 31 
     to conform the required contents of the budget submission 
     with respect to prior year receipts to account for a biennial 
     budget cycle.
       Section 705(c) amends section 1105(b) of Title 31, 
     regarding estimated expenditures

[[Page H3081]]

     and proposed appropriations for the legislative and judicial 
     branches, to require the submission of these proposals to the 
     President by October 16th of even-number years.
       Section 705(d) amends section 1105(c) of Title 31, 
     regarding the President's recommendations if there is a 
     proposed deficit or surplus, to conform to a biennial budget 
     cycle.
       Section 705(e) amends section 1105(e)(1) of Title 31, 
     regarding capitol investment analyses, to conform to a 
     biennial budget cycle.
       Section 705(f)(1) and (2) amends section 1106 (a) and (b) 
     of Title 31 respectively, relating to the President's 
     submission of supplemental budget estimates and changes, to 
     conform to a biennial budget cycle. The President is still 
     required to submit a Mid-session Review of the budget by July 
     16 of each year as well as will now be required to also 
     submit a Mid-biennium Review on or before February 15 of each 
     year even numbered year.
       Section 705(g)(1) amends section 1109(a) of Title 31, 
     regarding the President's submission of current program and 
     activity estimates, to conform to a biennial budget cycle and 
     require its submission with the overall budget submission for 
     each odd-numbered year as required by section 1105.
       Section 705(g)(2) amends section 1109(b) of Title 31, 
     regarding the Joint Economic committee's analysis of the 
     President's current program and activity estimates, to 
     require the Joint Economic Committee to submit an economic 
     evaluation of such estimates to the Budget Committee as part 
     of its views and estimates within 6 weeks of the President's 
     budget submission for each odd-numbered year.
       Section 705(h) amends section 1110 of Title 31, regarding 
     advance requests for authorization legislation to require the 
     President to submit requests for authorization legislation by 
     March 31st of even-numbered years.
       Section 706. Two-Year Appropriations; Title and Style of 
     Appropriations Acts. Section 706 amends section 105 of Title 
     I of the U.S. Code to conform the statutory style and 
     definition of appropriations Acts to require that they cover 
     each of two fiscal years of a biennium.
       Section 707. Multi-Year Authorizations. Section 707(a) 
     amends Title III of the Budget Act by adding a new section 
     318 that establishes a new point of order in the House and 
     Senate against the consideration of any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that does 
     contain a specific authorization of appropriations for any 
     purpose for less than each fiscal year in one or more 
     bienniums. This prohibition does not apply to an 
     authorization of appropriations for a single fiscal year. For 
     any program, project or activity if the measure (defined 
     as a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or 
     conference report) containing that authorization includes 
     a provision expressly stating the following: ``Congress 
     finds that no authorization of appropriation will be 
     required for [Insert name of applicable program, project, 
     or activity] for any subsequent fiscal year.'' It further 
     defines a specific authorization of appropriations as an 
     authorization for the enactment of an amount of 
     appropriations or amounts not to exceed an amount of 
     appropriations (whether stated as a sum certain, as a 
     limit, or as such sums as may be necessary) for any 
     purpose for a fiscal year.
       Section 707(b) amends section 1(b) of the Budget Act to 
     conform the table of contents of the Budget Act to account 
     for this new section 318.
       Section 708. Government Strategic and Performance Plans on 
     a Biennial Basis. Section 708 amends the Government and 
     Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act) to 
     incorporate GPRA into the biennial budget cycle. The Results 
     Act requires federal agencies to develop strategic plans, 
     performance plans, and performance reports. Strategic plans 
     set out the agencies' missions and general goals. Performance 
     plans lay out the specific quantifiable goals and measures. 
     Performance reports compare actual performance with the goals 
     of past performance plans. The Results Act currently requires 
     federal agencies to consult with congressional committees as 
     they develop their strategic plans. The Results Act requires 
     all federal agencies to submit their strategic and 
     performance plans to the Office of Management and Budget, 
     along with their budget submissions, by September 30 of each 
     year. Finally, the Results Act requires the President to 
     include a performance plan for the entire government.
       Sections 708(a) through (g) amend section 306 of title 5, 
     sections 1105, 1119 and 9703 of title 31, and sections 2802 
     and 2803 of title 39 require agencies to prepare strategic 
     and performance plans every two years, in conjunction with 
     the President's development of a biennial budget. In 
     addition, these amendments make other changes to conform 
     strategic and performance plans to a biennial budget cycle.
       Section 708(h) amends section 301(d) of the Budget Act to 
     require Congressional committees to review the strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports of agencies 
     in their jurisdiction. Committees may then provide their 
     views on the agency's plans or reports as part of their views 
     and estimates on the President's budget submitted to the 
     Budget Committees.
       Section 708(i) provides that the amendments by this section 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2003.
       Section 709. Biennial Appropriations Bills. Section 
     709(a)(1) amends clause 2(a) of House Rule XXI to provide 
     that in the House of Representatives an appropriation may not 
     be reported in a general appropriation bill (other than a 
     supplemental appropriation bill), and may not be in order as 
     an amendment thereto, unless it provides new budget authority 
     or establishes a level of obligations under contract 
     authority for each fiscal year of a biennium. If further 
     provides that this prohibition shall not apply with respect 
     to an appropriation for a single fiscal year for any program, 
     project, or activity if the bill or amendment thereto 
     containing that appropriation includes a provision expressly 
     stating the following: Congress finds that no additional 
     funding beyond one fiscal year will be required and the 
     [Insert name of applicable program, project, or activity] 
     will be completed or terminated after the amount provided has 
     been expended.'' The subparagraph is further amended to 
     provide that such a statement shall not constitute 
     legislating on an appropriation bill if it is included with 
     an appropriation for a single fiscal year for any program, 
     project, or activity.
       Section 709(a)(2) amends clause 5(b)(1) of House Rule XXII 
     to apply similar prohibitions against appropriation 
     conference reports.
       Section 709(b)(1) amends Title III of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to add a new section 319 to create a point 
     of order in the Senate against consideration in any odd-
     numbered year of any regular appropriation bill providing new 
     budget authority or a limitation on obligations under the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations for only the 
     first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program, project, 
     or activity for which the new budget authority or obligation 
     limitation is provided will require no additional authority 
     beyond one year and will be completed or terminated after the 
     amount provided has been expended.
       Section 709(b)(2) amends section 1(b) of the Budget Act to 
     conform the table of contents of the Budget Act to account 
     for this new section 319.
       Section 710. Assistance By Federal Agencies to Standing 
     Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 
     Section 710(a) requires the head of each Federal agency under 
     the jurisdiction of a standing committee to provide to 
     committee those studies, information, analyses, reports, and 
     assistance as may be requested by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the committee.
       Section 710(b) requires the head of each Federal agency to 
     furnish to such committee documentation containing 
     information received, compiled, or maintained by the agency 
     as part of the operation or administration of a program, or 
     specifically compiled pursuant to a request in support of a 
     review of a program, as may be requested by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of such committee.
       Section 710(c) requires that, within 30 days after the 
     receipt of a request from a chairman and ranking minority 
     member of a standing committee having jurisdiction over a 
     program being reviewed, the Comptroller General furnish to 
     the committee summaries of any audits or reviews of such 
     program the Comptroller General has completed during the 
     preceding six years.
       Section 710(d) reaffirms the role of the Comptroller 
     General, the Director of the Congressional Research Service, 
     and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to 
     furnish (consistent with established protocols) to each 
     standing committee of the House and Senate such information, 
     studies, analyses, and reports as the chairman and ranking 
     minority member may request to assist the committee in 
     conducting reviews and studies of programs under its 
     jurisdiction.
       Section 711. Report on Two-Year Fiscal Period. Requires 
     that, not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of OMB shall determine the impact of 
     changing the definition of a fiscal year and the budget 
     process based on that definition to a 2 year fiscal period 
     with a biennial budget process based on the 2 year period, 
     and shall report his findings to the Committees on Budget 
     in the House and Senate and the Committee on Rules in the 
     House.
       Section 712. Special Transition Period for the 107th 
     Congress. Section 712(a) requires the President to include in 
     the FY 2002 budget submission an identification of the budget 
     accounts for which an appropriation should be made for each 
     fiscal year of the FY 2002-2003 biennium and any necessary 
     budget authority that should be provided for each such fiscal 
     year for those identified budget accounts.
       Section 712(b) requires the Appropriations Committees of 
     each House to review the President's recommendations and 
     include an assessment of those recommendations and any 
     recommendations of their own in the committee's overall views 
     and estimates on the President's budget which they are 
     required to submit to their respective Budget Committees.
       Section 712(c)(1) requires the Budget Committees of each 
     House to review the recommendations of both the President and 
     the Appropriations Committees with respect to those budget 
     accounts that should be funded for the biennium.
       Section 712(c)(2) requires the report of the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House and the joint explanatory statement 
     of the managers accompanying the budget resolution for FY 
     2002 to include an allocation to the Appropriations 
     Committees for FY 2003 from which the Appropriations 
     Committee can

[[Page H3082]]

     fund certain accounts in the FY 2002 appropriations bills for 
     each of the fiscal years in the FY 2003-2004 biennium.
       Section 712(c)(3) requires the report of the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House and the joint explanatory statement 
     of the managers accompanying the budget resolution for FY 
     2002 to include the assumptions upon which the allocation to 
     the Appropriations Committees for FY 2003 is made.
       Section 712(d)(2) directs the GAO to work with the 
     Committees of Congress during the first session of 107th 
     Congress to develop plans to transition program 
     authorizations to a multi-year schedule.
       Section 712(d)(2) requires GAO to continue to provide 
     assistance to the Congress with respect to programmatic 
     oversight and in particular to assist committees in designing 
     and conforming programmatic oversight procedures for the 
     Fiscal Year 2003-2004 biennium.
       Section 712(e) provides for a CBO report to Congress 
     (before January 15, 2002) listing all those programs and 
     activities that were funded during FY 2002 with no 
     authorization and all those programs and activities whose 
     authorizations will expire during that fiscal year, FY 2003 
     and FY 2004.
       Section 712(f) requires the President's budget submission 
     for FY 2003 to including an evaluation of and recommendations 
     regarding the transitional biennial budget process for the 
     fiscal year 2002-2003 biennium.
       Section 712(g) requires CBO to issue a report on or before 
     March 31, 2002 include an evaluation of and recommendations 
     regarding the transitional biennial budget process for the 
     fiscal year 2002-2003 biennium.
       Section 713. Effective Date. Except as provided by sections 
     708, 711 and 712, the Act is effective January 1, 2003, and 
     applicable to budget, authorization and appropriations 
     legislation for the biennium beginning in FY 2004.
                                  ____

                                                       Council for


                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2000.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dreier: On behalf of the 600,000 members of 
     the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I 
     would like to express my support for your biennial budget 
     amendment to the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act.
       Your amendment will build upon several significant reforms 
     to the federal budget process that are embodied in the base 
     bill. The creation of a biennial budget will allow Congress 
     to perform its most critical responsibilities. Devoting the 
     first session of each Congress to the budget and 
     appropriation process will enable members to spend the second 
     session on oversight into the effectiveness of that spending.
       A two-year budget will save a great degree of time and 
     resources that are being wasted on the current process. This 
     reform will streamline the budget process and make Congress 
     more accountable to the American taxpayer.
       CCAGW urges your House colleagues to support your 
     amendment. The vote on your bill will be among those 
     considered for CCAGW's 2000 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas Schatz,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Dreier: The U.S. House of 
     Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 853, the 
     Comprehensive Budget Reform Act sponsored by Representatives 
     Jim Nussle (R-IA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Porter Goss (R-FL) 
     in the next few days. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you 
     to support this common-sense legislation.
       This measure, the product of extensive bipartisan 
     negotiations and congressional hearings, will strengthen the 
     existing federal budget process and provide additional--and 
     needed--accountability of federal spending decisions.
       Among its major provisions, this legislation establishes a 
     reserve fund to better budget for emergency needs; requires 
     more legislation be subjected to budgetary enforcement rules; 
     prohibits the consideration of legislation creating new 
     spending programs unless the authorization is for ten years 
     or less; and requires that both the President and Congress 
     better budget for many long-term unfunded federal 
     liabilities.
       During consideration of H.R. 853, Representative David 
     Dreier is expected to offer a biennial budget amendment. The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce earlier this year testified before 
     the Committee on Rules in support of a biennial federal 
     budget and we strongly support the Dreier amendment. Biennial 
     budgeting would help streamline budget decisions and allow 
     the Congress and Federal agencies more time to manage and 
     oversee federal programs.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation, representing more than three million 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to 
     support H.R. 853 and the Dreier biennial budget amendment to 
     their eventual enactment into law.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                        The Concord Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Hon. Bill Luther,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dreier and Representative Luther: The Concord 
     Coalition is pleased to support your amendment to H.R. 853, 
     The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, which would move 
     the budget and appropriations processes to biennial cycles.
       Putting the President's budget, the Congressional Budget 
     Resolution, appropriations, and oversight on a two-year cycle 
     that coincides with the sessions of Congress is an excellent 
     proposal. Moving to a biennial budget process would make the 
     legislative and executive branches more efficient, while 
     helping to shield the budget process from the gamesmanship 
     and election year politics that have frequently spelled 
     fiscal disaster in years past.
       One of the strongest arguments in favor of your amendment 
     is that it would enhance opportunities for Congressional 
     oversight. As you know, many members of Congress have come to 
     believe that the annual, repetitive battle over the budget 
     makes it impossible to engage in any meaningful oversight. 
     Evidence in support of this perception is the fact that, 
     according to CBO, some $121 billion worth of FY 2000 
     appropriations were made for programs and activities with 
     expired authorizations. With biennial budgeting in place, the 
     first session of each Congress would ideally be spent on 
     setting priorities and funding levels, which would leave a 
     significant portion of the second session available for long-
     term planning and oversight.
       The Concord Coalition believes that your amendment also 
     makes sense from the perspective of government efficiency, 
     given that Congress functions in a biennial mode. Conforming 
     the budget cycle to the Congressional cycle is a sensible 
     change that would replace budget politics with more 
     productive work. Too much time is consumed needlessly in 
     repetitious budget preparation, justification, and 
     appropriation. With a two-year budget, policymakers will be 
     able to spend less time negotiating budget agreements and 
     invest more of their energy in improving government 
     performance.
       For these reasons, The Concord Coalition is pleased to 
     support your amendment establishing biennial budgeting for 
     the federal government. We commend you and the co-sponsors 
     for putting forward this bipartisan proposal, which we 
     believe would produce a more efficient and fiscally 
     responsible budget process.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert L. Bixby,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                   Committee for a


                                    Responsible Federal Budget

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2000.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand that the House will take 
     up the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999 on 
     Thursday this week. We also understand that you will offer an 
     amendment to that bill to convert to a biennial budget and 
     appropriations cycle. We are writing to express support for 
     that amendment.
       Biennial budgeting and appropriations is not a panacea for 
     all the ails the budget process. But a biennial cycle could 
     save time and resources in the Administration and on Capitol 
     Hill--time and resources that could be redirected to meet 
     high priority public service needs.
       It would be a real boon if a biennial cycle results in 
     Congress and the Administration paying more attention to 
     authorizations and oversight.
       Biennial budgeting also could save the country money, 
     though that is by no means certain. It does seem that every 
     new appropriations cycle provides opportunities to ratchet up 
     the baseline for federal expenditure.
       We applaud your decision to stay with a one-year fiscal 
     year (and single-year appropriations) even as you move to a 
     biennial cycle. In all, we think your amendment is well 
     conceived and deserving of our former colleagues' support.
       If you have any questions or if you need further 
     information, please call Carol Wait in the Committee's 
     office.
           Best Regards,
     Bill Frenzel.
     Tim Penny.
                                  ____

                                                   Committee for a


                                    Responsible Federal Budget

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle and
     Hon. Ben Cardin,
     House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim and Ben: We understand that the House will take up 
     the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999 this 
     week. We are writing to express our strong support for that 
     legislation.

[[Page H3083]]

       This bill will not fix everything that is wrong with the 
     budget process, but it is a giant step in the right 
     direction.
       Perhaps most importantly, the Comprehensive Budget Process 
     Reform Act would change the current nonbinding concurrent 
     budget resolution to a joint budget resolution to be signed 
     or vetoed by the President. Once signed, the joint resolution 
     would have the force of law. The importance of this change 
     cannot be overstated. So long as the two policy branches of 
     government operate off of different plans, there really is no 
     such thing as a budget for the United States Government. This 
     is the source of most confusion attributed to baselines.
       Some say that Congress and the President cannot resolve 
     their differences early in the budget process. We are 
     convinced that they can agree on the big pieces: aggregate 
     spending and revenues--mandatory and discretionary, defense 
     and non-defense spending totals--and expenditure caps. We 
     believe that such agreements could bring order to 
     consideration of spending, revenue and reconciliation bills. 
     The first time through this process may seem difficult; but 
     subsequent budget cycles should go more smoothly, because all 
     parties would have a tremendous incentive to act. Passing a 
     new budget would permit them to set new spending caps and 
     otherwise amend the most recently enacted budget law.
       Who can argue against efforts to ameliorate the distortions 
     caused by so-called ``emergency provisions'' in existing law? 
     Not we, we think it is imperative for Congress to do 
     something about this problem before the budget process loses 
     all credibility. The Comprehensive Budget Reform Act would 
     require Congress and the President to budget for emergencies 
     and set up safeguards to keep the kinds of abuses abound 
     today from recurring.
       Who can argue against greater accountability in Federal 
     spending? Discretionary spending is growing more rapidly than 
     at any other time since the Viet Nam War. The provisions of 
     this bill would not necessarily change that. It is not the 
     objective of budget process legislation to etch in stone 
     specific spending decisions. But the new law would require 
     regularized reauthorization of all spending laws, programs 
     and agencies and that should help to curb or eliminate lower 
     priority spending. Further, it would limit new entitlement 
     legislation. That is especially important as the time 
     approaches when we will not be able to pay current law Social 
     Security and Medicare benefits from dedicated tax receipts.
       The changes that this bill would bring to budgeting for 
     long-term obligations and baseline calculations also are 
     desirable.
       All in all, this is good legislation. We urge our former 
     colleagues to support it.
           Best regards,
     Bill Frenzel.
     Tim Penny.
                                  ____



                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, Budget Committee Task Force on Budget Process,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Nussle: Americans for Tax Reform is very 
     concerned about attempts to remove the legally binding joint 
     resolution provision from the Budget Process Reform Act.
       We enthusiastically support changing the current non-
     binding budget resolution into a legally enforceable joint 
     resolution passed by both houses of Congress. Such a joint 
     resolution, when signed by the president, will set the stage 
     for meaningful budget negotiations between the legislative 
     and executive branches at the beginning of the year, with 
     overall levels of spending being agreed to upfront.
       Consequently, a joint resolution will avoid the type of 
     brinkmanship that has allowed spending levels to eventually 
     balloon far in excess of what was originally envisaged.
       Taxpayers deserve a budget process that makes sense and 
     whose limits and outlines have the force of law. A joint 
     budget resolution will achieve that.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Grover G. Norquist,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 


                                        The Concord Coalition,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Hon. Ben Cardin,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Nussel and Mr. Cardin, The Concord Coalition is 
     pleased to lend its strong support to H.R. 853, the 
     Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act. We commend the 
     bill's sponsors for putting forward this bipartisan effort to 
     strengthen the budget process.
       In particular, The Concord Coalition supports:
       Changing the budget resolution from a concurrent resolution 
     that binds only Congress, but not the Administration, to a 
     joint resolution that requires the President's signature. The 
     allocation of constrained resources is a tough political 
     process, and the earlier in the year that agreement can be 
     reached on at least a general framework, the better.
       Streamlining the budget resolution to just the major budget 
     enforcement categories and the aggregates. The parts of the 
     budget resolution that really matter and have teeth for 
     enforcement purposes are not the 20 budget functions but 
     rather the handful of limits that tell policy makers how much 
     money they have to work with during the ensuring year--total 
     spending, revenues, surplus or deficit, public debt, 
     mandatory spending, non-defense discretionary spending, 
     defense discretionary spending, and emergency spending. If 
     the budget resolution continued to require function-by-
     function details, the Congress and the White House would 
     seldom be able to agree on a joint resolution, particularly 
     during times of divided party control. However, even with 
     different parties in control of different chambers or 
     branches of government, it should be possible most years to 
     agree on aggregates. If not, H.R. 853 allows the present 
     concurrent resolution process to kick in.
       Setting up an advance reserve for emergencies in the budget 
     resolution, and tightening the definition of ``emergency'' to 
     a situation involving loss of life or property, or a threat 
     to national security, that is unanticipated--sudden, urgent, 
     unforeseen and temporary. Although we never know what 
     disaster or emergency lies ahead, it's safe to assume that 
     there will be one. Yet, year after year, insufficient funds 
     are appropriated through the regular appropriations process 
     to finance even an average level of disaster spending. Then, 
     when disaster strikes, the only way to provide relief is 
     through the emergency spending loophole. Abuse of this 
     loophole has become the most egregious and flagrant disregard 
     of the spirit of the budget process.
       Entitlement reform measures including subjecting new 
     entitlements to annual appropriations, barring enactment of 
     new entitlements lasting longer than 10 years, requiring 10 
     year cost estimates, and requiring oversight review of all 
     programs, including existing entitlements, at least every 
     decade.
       Reform of the budget rules for unfunded liabilities in 
     federal insurance programs to get a better handle on the 
     creation of new long-term insurance obligations or expansion 
     of existing ones. The current scoring procedures do not 
     accurately reflect the long-term federal liabilities 
     associated with various government insurance programs. H.R. 
     853 proposes setting up a new scoring and accounting system 
     for federal insurance programs to deal with these problems.
       Some have argued that the budget process is not broken, and 
     does not need to be fixed. The Concord Coalition disagrees. 
     Lately, the closing days of the session have deteriorated 
     into a very costly and unstatesmanlike cross between a fiscal 
     food fight and a game of budgetary chicken in which the aim 
     of each side seems to be to inflict maximum political 
     embarrassment on the other while getting as much as possible 
     for one's own spending or tax priorities.
       No amount of process reform can guarantee a better result. 
     But, in Concord's view, H.R. 853 focuses on the places where 
     budget enforcement has broken down most flagrantly--emergency 
     spending, end-game tactics, scoring of federal insurance 
     programs, lack of entitlement oversight, and lack of 
     enforcement of the existing budget discipline. You and the 
     other co-sponsors have worked hard to reach bipartisan 
     agreement on this important legislation. The Concord 
     Coalition congratulates you and looks forward to working with 
     you in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert L. Bixby,
                                               Executive Director.
                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nussle: On behalf of the 600,000 
     members of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste 
     (CCAGW), I would like to express my support for the 
     Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act.
       This legislation makes several significant reforms to the 
     federal budget process. By transforming the non-binding 
     concurrent budget resolution into a joint resolution, the 
     budget would become a document with the force of law. The 
     legislation provides further order to the budget process by 
     enabling Congress to adopt a concurrent budget resolution 
     under expedited procedures if the president vetoes the joint 
     budget resolution.
       By creating an emergency reserve fund and clearly defining 
     what would qualify as an emergency, the legislation will 
     allow for expedited funding for truly unanticipated events 
     while preventing the manipulation of this designation for 
     other purposes. The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act 
     also strengthens fiscal responsibility by requiring the 
     Budget Committee to certify that each spending bill is in 
     compliance with budgetary levels set forth by the budget 
     resolution, establishing regular authorization for government 
     programs, and prohibiting new spending programs from being 
     authorized for more than ten years at a time. Your 
     legislation also includes the requirement that new spending 
     requests are compared to actual previous levels.
       I would also like to express my opposition to any amendment 
     that would weaken the reforms in your bill. Chief among these 
     is an amendment that may be offered which would prevent the 
     budget from having the force of law. It is in the interest of 
     the taxpayers that Congress and the president be bound by law 
     to certain spending limitations.
       I appreciate your leadership on this important issue. CCAGW 
     urges your colleagues to support your legislation. The vote 
     on your bill will be among those considered for

[[Page H3084]]

     CCAGW's 2000 Congressional Ratings. In addition, any 
     amendment offered that would strike the force of law 
     provision will also be considered for CCAGW's 2000 
     Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas Schatz.
                                  ____

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nussle: The U.S. House of 
     Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 853, the 
     Comprehensive Budget Reform Act sponsored by Representatives 
     Jim Nussle (R-IA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Porter Goss (R-FL) 
     in the next few days. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you 
     to support this common-sense legislation.
       This measure, the product of extensive bipartisan 
     negotiations and congressional hearings, will strengthen the 
     existing federal budget process and provide additional--and 
     needed--accountability of federal spending decisions.
       Among its major provisions, this legislation establishes a 
     reserve fund to better budget for emergency needs; requires 
     more legislation be subjected to budgetary enforcement rules; 
     prohibits the consideration of legislation creating new 
     spending programs unless the authorization is for ten years 
     or less; and requires that both the President and Congress 
     better budget for many long-term unfunded federal 
     liabilities.
       During consideration of H.R. 853, Representative David 
     Dreier is expected to offer a biennial budget amendment. The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce earlier this year testified before 
     the Committee on Rules in support of a biennial federal 
     budget and we strongly support the Dreier amendment. Biennial 
     budgeting would help streamline budget decisions and allow 
     the Congress and Federal agencies more time to manage and 
     oversee federal programs.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation, representing more than three million 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to 
     support H.R. 853 and the Dreier biennial budget amendment to 
     their eventual enactment into law.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____



                                   Taxpayers for Common $ense,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Hon. Ben Cardin,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

                        Re: Support for H.R. 853

       Dear Congressmen Nussle and Cardin: When the House 
     considers H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform 
     Act, Taxpayers for Common Sense urges all members to support 
     this important bill. TCS believes that it represents a 
     valuable and serious effort by you and your bipartisan 
     cosponsors, to fix some of the worst things about the budget 
     process.
       H.R. 853 should be called ``The Dire Emergency Budget 
     Process Reform Act of 2000.'' It is likely to be more 
     important than any similarly-named supplemental 
     appropriations bill that will be presented to the House this 
     year.
       The budget process is broken. It is cluttered with numbers 
     that mostly count for nothing, like the budget function 
     subtotals. It ignores the annual reality that emergencies 
     happen. It allows unfunded federal insurance liabilities. It 
     puts too many programs on fiscal autopilot. Finally, it 
     generates debates and votes that resolve nothing. All of this 
     wastes time and political energy in Congress, as well as 
     taxpayer money. Your bill would address all of these 
     problems.
       No one should believe that H.R. 853 or any other process 
     reform will guarantee fiscally responsible budgeting. 
     Ultimately, that results from a political will and 
     seriousness of purpose that have been lacking in Congress in 
     recent years on both sides of the aisle and in many different 
     congressional committees.
       But no one should oppose H.R. 853 on the grounds that its 
     significant and badly-needed improvements in the budget 
     process would not be the perfect solution to all problems. 
     That would be a flimsy excuse, and process reform might 
     create a climate for progress on other fronts. We urge all 
     members to become part of the solution, and to support H.R. 
     853.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ralph DeGennaro,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                                                 CapitolWatch,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nussle: On behalf of the 250,000 
     supporters of CapitolWatch, I thank you for introducing H.R. 
     853, ``The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999.''
       H.R. 853 will create a better budget process by amending 
     the rules to encourage Congress and the President to agree on 
     a Joint Budget Resolution at the beginning of the budget 
     process. Such a resolution would help force Congress and the 
     President to keep within spending limits.
       H.R. 853 will also stop Congress and the President from 
     passing additional spending outside the normal budget 
     process. The bill strictly defines ``emergency'' spending as 
     funding for the ``loss of life or property, or a threat to 
     national security'' and an ``unanticipated'' situation.
       CapitolWatch believes that ``sunlight is the greatest 
     disinfectant'' and that H.R. 853 will allow the time needed 
     for a full and open debate on budget issues that will replace 
     the usual process--a hodgepodge omnibus bill negotiated at 
     the last minute with the possibility of a government 
     shutdown. CapitolWatch believes that H.R. 853 will bring 
     about a budget process that is less wasteful and leads to 
     more effective government.
       CapitolWatch and its 250,000 citizen lobbyists are urging 
     all members of the House of Representatives to support your 
     bill. We wish you much success and look forward to assisting 
     you in the passage of this much-needed legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Andrew F. Quinlan,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nussle: On behalf of the 600,000 
     members of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste 
     (CCAGW), I would like to express my support for the 
     Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act.
       This legislation makes several significant reforms to the 
     federal budget process. By transforming the non-binding 
     concurrent budget resolution into a joint budget resolution, 
     the budget would become a document with the force of law. The 
     legislation provides further order to the budget process by 
     enabling Congress to adopt a concurrent budget resolution 
     under expedited procedures if the president vetoes the joint 
     budget resolution.
       By creating an emergency reserve fund and clearly defining 
     what would qualify as an emergency, the legislation will 
     allow for expedited funding for truly unanticipated events 
     while preventing the manipulation of this designation for 
     other purposes. The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act 
     also strengthens fiscal responsibility by requiring the 
     Budget Committee to certify that each spending bill is in 
     compliance with budgetary levels set forth by the budget 
     resolution, establishing regular authorization for government 
     programs, and prohibiting new spending programs from being 
     authorized for more than ten years at a time. Your 
     legislation also includes the requirement that new spending 
     requests are compared to actual previous levels.
       We appreciate your leadership on this important issue. 
     CCAGW urges your House colleagues to support your 
     legislation. The vote on your bill will be among those 
     considered for CCAGW's 2000 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas Schatz.
                                  ____



                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Sir: Americans for Tax Reform would like to express its 
     support for your bill ``The Comprehensive Budget Process 
     Reform Act.'' This sound proposal would introduce fiscal 
     restraint to a frequently incoherent procedure that now aids 
     and abets profligate spending. Your legislation would not 
     only repair a faltering system, it would safeguard the 
     interests of our nation's overburdened taxpayers.
       Most notably, your bill would make the all-important switch 
     from a concurrent budget resolution (which ultimately serves 
     to invite counterproductive and often pointless inter-branch 
     conflict) to a joint budget resolution. This would compel the 
     President and Congress to agree on overall levels of spending 
     at the beginning of the process, when consensus should be 
     reached, and not at the last possible moment, as is currently 
     done. Consequently, inserting superfluous spending provisions 
     into appropriations bills will be more tightly controlled. 
     This alone is ample reason to support your legislation.
       In addition, your bill requires committees to reauthorize 
     the departments and programs under their purview every ten 
     years. Today, nearly every federal activity is underwritten 
     by its own essentially permanent and self-perpetuating 
     spending authority. As a result, Executive agencies have 
     license to automatically devour money. It's often been said 
     that the closest thing to immortality is a government 
     program. This is unfortunately true, but your bill would 
     render that witticism anachronistic.
       Furthermore, your bill's measures for curtailing spurious 
     demands for ``emergency spending'' will save taxpayers 
     millions upon millions of dollars every year; no more 
     allocations for such ``unforeseen threats'' to the 
     commonwealth as dangerously non-existent parking garages. All 
     told, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act is a well-
     constructed and perfectly reasonable proposal worthy of 
     passage.
       We will seriously consider rating Congress' vote on this 
     bill. The time for budget reform is long overdue. We're glad 
     that you have taken the initiative to make it a reality.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Grover Norquist.

[[Page H3085]]

     
                                  ____
                                      National Taxpayers Union

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Nussle: On behalf of the 300,000-member 
     National Taxpayers Union, (NTU) I write to endorse H.R. 853, 
     the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, and to urge all 
     Members to work toward its passage.
       The end of the year ``omnibus appropriation,'' ``emergency 
     spending,'' and ``supplemental appropriation'' bills that 
     have characterized Congressional budgeting and spending over 
     the last decade clearly demonstrate that the current budget 
     process used on Capitol Hill is incapable of instituting, or 
     ensuring, fiscal responsibility and discipline in Washington. 
     The result has been end of the year spending sprees initiated 
     by a President bent on hijacking the budget process in order 
     to spend the surpluses resulting from the hard work of 
     American taxpayers. Clearly, a mechanism for fiscal 
     responsibility in Washington is needed.
       Your bill moves Washington in that direction. By giving 
     budgetary limitations the force of law, requiring clearly 
     distinguished standards for emergency spending, and requiring 
     accountability for federal programs, H.R. 853 will provide 
     some much needed restraint on the federal spending train that 
     is currently out of control.
       Once again, NTU endorses the Comprehensive Budget Process 
     Reform Act, and encourages all Members to work toward its 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Eric V. Schlecht,
                                Director, Congressional Relations.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my dear colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), 
for yielding me the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which fails to protect 
veterans, student loans, and prescription drugs from possible 
elimination. Last week, the Committee on Rules, my colleagues, refused 
to make in order three excellent amendments that would have made great 
improvements to this bill.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) offered an amendment to 
exempt student loans from the sunset requirements in this bill. Without 
the Holt amendment, our student loan programs are on the chopping block 
every 10 years. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that American families want 
that program protected.
  I believe they also want Medicare and prescription drug benefits 
protected, and last week, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) 
offered an amendment doing just that. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Nevada protecting Medicare was 
also defeated by my Republican colleagues.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) offered an amendment 
protecting veterans programs from the chopping block, but my Republican 
colleagues, once again, decided not to make his amendment in order 
either.
  So this budget process reform bill will endanger student loans, 
Medicare, and veterans programs, and, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is 
only the beginning. First of all, this bill changes the budget 
resolution from a concurrent resolution to a joint resolution and, in 
doing so, this bill slows down a process that is already too slow.
  As long as one party controls the White House and one party controls 
the Congress, there will never be serious negotiations on a budget 
resolution. Mr. Speaker, different parties have no reason whatsoever to 
compromise with one another at the budget resolution stakes of the 
process.
  As everyone knows, the budget resolution is only a political 
statement, and I believe the majority in Congress should have the 
opportunity to set out their own plan in the budget resolution. By 
requiring the budget resolution be signed into law, my colleagues will 
stall the appropriations process even further, while Congress and the 
White House struggle and struggle to agree.
  Mr. Speaker, as it is, our appropriations process takes far too long. 
This joint resolution is going to make that deadline even more 
difficult to make than it already is.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this bill changes the way we designate 
emergencies. Now, I agree that far too many spending programs are 
falling under the category of emergency these days; programs like the 
Census, which could hardly be called a surprise. But the reason for so 
many nonemergencies being pushed into that category is because it is 
impossible to live within the caps. Emergencies give Congress a way 
around the caps. So until we have more realistic caps, Congress will 
continue to resort to emergencies or some other gimmick no matter how 
high we raise that bar.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I understand my chairman will offer an 
amendment changing our budget to a biennial system. As I have said 
before, many times, I believe biennial budgeting will encourage more 
supplemental appropriation bills, it will weaken Congress' ability to 
set budget priorities, and it will require decisions to be made much 
too far in advance. It is hard enough to predict where we will need to 
spend the money 1 month in advance much less 2 years in advance.
  Although my colleagues made some changes in this bill which does 
improve the bill tremendously, last week the Committee on Rules made in 
order amendments to reverse those changes. They removed the dangerous 
pay-go system that will endanger Social Security and Medicare, then 
they made in order an amendment to restore it. They removed the 
automatic continuing resolution which would make it easier to avoid 
compromise, then they made an amendment in order to restore that, too.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues did not see fit to protect 
Medicare, student loans, or veterans programs. They decided those 
programs, like a lot of the spending programs, should be up for grabs 
every 10 years, but they made in order amendments restoring portions of 
the bill that they themselves decided were too unwise.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to stand up for student 
loans, Medicare, veterans benefits and to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), who is indeed an author of this and has worked long and 
hard, and in a very distinguished nonpartisan manner, to bring this 
process to Members to debate.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to start by giving my appreciation to my good friend 
from Florida for his good work on the Committee on Rules, and for the 
Committee on Rules as a whole, for their patience, for their 
understanding, for the thoroughness in which they have conducted this 
budget process, reform process.
  That is really what we are talking about today, is process. As much 
as there are a few Members in our body that are rushing to the floor 
now at the last minute wanting to inject into this a certain level of 
political substance, let me caution Members that this has been a 
bipartisan process which has not gone to the level of political 
substance or political theater.
  I would suggest that while there are many viewpoints on exactly how 
the budget process should be conducted, exactly how our budget should 
be arrived at, we have, in this process with the Committee on Rules, 
with the Committee on the Budget, with the Committee on Appropriations, 
stayed completely away from substantive outcome determinant procedures. 
This is outcome neutral in its process.
  I had to describe this to a group of kids back home in Iowa, and they 
wanted to find out what I was going to be working on this week. And 
budget process reform, quite honestly, is pretty much a yawn, I would 
have to suggest. Even the gentleman from Massachusetts would probably 
agree with me on that. But I told them, I said, it is a lot like when 
we play the game Monopoly. We dust off the board game, Monopoly, and we 
open it up and look on the back of the box and it never tells us who is 
going to win the game. It never says one player gets to pass go and 
collect $200 but another does not; one specific player gets to be the 
shoe today and another gets to be the thimble. Nowhere in the game do 
we see that. And that is what we have tried to preserve here too.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct when he stated that we do 
not protect specifically prescription drugs or Social Security or 
student loans, nor do we protect the United States Capitol building. 
According to our budget process reform, there is nothing in there that 
prevents us from

[[Page H3086]]

tearing it down and moving it to maybe even Des Moines, Iowa. In fact, 
we could get rid of the Energy Department, according to this. There is 
no protection in there for Energy, no protection for the Commerce 
Department, no protection in there for any of the programs, the 
bureaucracies, the agencies, the departments, the buildings, and, even 
for that matter, the people within them. We could eliminate all sorts 
of budgets within this. There are no special protections.
  There is a reason for that. We do not want to determine the outcome. 
We want Congress to work its will. But we also believe it needs to be 
real. The gentleman from Massachusetts said this is nothing but a 
political document. That is what is wrong. That is what is wrong. From 
the time this bill was first introduced, back in 1974, when the 
Committee on the Budget was first established, when the budget process 
was first established, it was established because the Committee on 
Appropriations, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Congress as a 
whole could not come together and understand what the final outcome was 
going to look like.
  It established a reconciliation process, so that before anything 
began, everyone had to sit down and look and see what it was going to 
look like, just like a normal home budget would look like. What are we 
going to spend, generally, how much money are we taking in, how much 
money do we think we should expend. The Committee on Appropriations 
should be allowed to put in the details. The Committee on Ways and 
Means should be allowed and have the power to put in the details. But 
someone had to come in and put an umbrella over the entire document, 
and that is the reason why the Committee on the Budget and the budget 
process was first instituted.
  So the question today is, is the process broken? Yes, the process is 
broken. We should not mess with a process if it is not broken. But go 
back and pick a year, any year my colleagues want to pick in the last 
decade, except for 1997, interestingly enough, and I will come back to 
that. Pick a year, any year, and every single year there was chaos, 
there were train wrecks, there were final negotiations at Andrews Air 
Force Base between the Congress and the President scrambling, with 
sometimes only three people in the room. And I see the smiles on the 
faces. Sometimes the Democrats were in the majority and it was the 
Republicans in control of the White House.
  Neither side can be happy with the current process that gets us to a 
train wreck. So we said what year worked? 1997 worked. Why did it work? 
Why did we finally get to a balanced budget for the first time in 40 
years? Because the Congress and the President sat down early in the 
process and came up with a memorandum of agreement that decided what 
the big picture was going to look like; how much money were we taking 
in in taxes; how much generally we were going to expend in spending; 
what was the national debt going to look like; what was Social Security 
going to look like, and they put together a memorandum of agreement. 
The big picture.
  From that, we had success. We wrote this bill to encourage that 
success in the future, and that is why we should support this rule and 
this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  This rule makes in order the Dreier amendment. Actually, it is the 
Dreier-Luther-Regula-Hall amendment, which establishes a 2-year budget 
process for Congress and the administration. As a former member of the 
Ohio General Assembly, which follows a 2-year budget process, I learned 
the value of considering budgets on a 2-year cycle instead of devoting 
each year to spending bills.
  In 1982, shortly after joining the House Committee on Rules, I was 
appointed to a task force on the budget process. At that time, I 
favored a biennial budget, and since then I have not changed my mind. 
Passing budgets and appropriation bills for 2 years will increase 
funding stability, permitting more efficient management of government 
programs. It will also reduce the amount of time Congress spends on 
considering the appropriation bills, allowing us to spend more time on 
serious problems that we have with oversight.

                              {time}  1315

  Under the current budget process, we are constantly missing deadlines 
for making decisions on spending. Moreover, our record on oversight in 
the last few years is poor. Many have blamed the unacceptable 
performance on the lack of time we have to spend on oversight.
  A 2-year budget process should free up time for House Members to 
spend on oversight. Properly carried out, oversight will give Congress 
greater insight into the execution of the laws that we pass and improve 
Government performance.
  The biennial budget process amendment has support on both sides of 
the aisle. It is an experiment worth trying.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am again privileged to yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending my 
congratulations, since he is walking out of the Chamber, I am going to 
mention him first, and that is to my very good friend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and fellow member of the Committee on Rules.
  Now that he is out of the chamber, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) is still here; so I would say that the distinguished vice-
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), has done a great job.
  And even though he is no longer in the chamber, I am going to say the 
name of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). He did a spectacular job 
in his presentation that he just made here. Maybe he is in the 
cloakroom and is able to hear my words here.
  There are a lot of people who have spent a great deal of time working 
on this issue of budget process reform, and we are beginning what is 
clearly an historic debate. For the first time in over a decade, the 
House will debate fundamental reform of the budget process.
  The bill that we will be making in order with this rule is a product 
of the work of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Rules and the efforts that we have put in for a long time. It also 
represents a landmark process in which those two committees of 
jurisdiction over the budget process have come together in a bipartisan 
manner. And I have got to stress that word ``bipartisan'' again.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has been working for years 
and years on this with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and with 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and with the rest of us, and it 
is due to their spectacular leadership that we have gotten to the point 
where we are today.
  As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) said just a few minutes ago, 
it is very clear that the budget process that we have now does not 
work. It is a disorganized patchwork of decades' old rules and laws.
  The bipartisan Comprehensive Budget Reform Act will make the process 
more rational, it improves accountability, and it strengthens 
enforcement in the budget process. Is it a panacea to all the ailments 
of society? No. Is it a cure-all for all of the challenges that we face 
on the budget process? No. But I will tell my colleagues, it is a very, 
very important step, which enjoys, again, bipartisan support.
  One item in here I will say, as a Californian, that I think is a very 
important aspect is the issue of dealing with natural disasters. We all 
know that they are a fact of life, whether it is hurricanes in Florida, 
or ice storms in upstate New York, or floods in Iowa, or in my home 
State we all know what we get, we get earthquakes in California, we 
know that there is going to be some kind of disaster and it will have 
an impact on the budget.
  This bill requires the President and the Congress to face reality and 
set

[[Page H3087]]

aside a disaster reserve fund within the budget. We do not need to pit 
the victims of Mother Nature against those who desire sound fiscal 
policies. This is just one of the many sensible reforms that have been 
put into place in this bill.
  The rule also makes in order a number of amendments for Members with 
very, very diverse views on this issue. Such amendments include 
biennial budgeting, which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) mentioned 
and I will be offering later, an automatic continuing resolution, and 
pay-go.
  All of these amendments are very important reform issues, and they 
deserve to be fully and openly considered in this debate, which is what 
this rule actually does.
  Now, I will take just a moment to talk about this issue which I feel 
so strongly about, and that is the question of biennial budgeting. That 
process could lead to the most significant change in the budget process 
that we have had in over a quarter century. Really, since the 1974 
Budget Empowerment Act was put into place, biennial budgeting would be 
the most sweeping reform.
  The enormous amount of resources that are expended by the executive 
branch in preparing multiple annual budgets at the same time would be 
diverted to long-term strategic planning and improving the performance 
of Federal programs. Again, this effort is put together with strong 
bipartisan support and enjoys the strong support of President Clinton, 
who, in his budget submission earlier this year, called for biennial 
budgeting.
  Vice President Al Gore, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 
President of the United States, he is a strong proponent of biennial 
budgeting.
  Governor George Bush of Texas, the presumptive nominee and I hope the 
next President of the United States, is in fact a strong proponent. He 
has a 2-year budget process in Texas and believes that we should do it 
here in Washington, D.C.
  When combined with other significant bipartisan budget reforms 
contained in the base bill, I believe that the biennial budget 
amendment which I will be offering represents a whole package of very 
comprehensive reforms.
  I urge my colleagues to resist the harsh partisan politics and to 
come together on what will be, as I said, a significant Government 
reform package that will benefit the American taxpayers. There will be 
tremendous taxpayer dollars saved if we can move in the direction of 
bringing about biennial budgeting and some of these other budget 
process reform issues.
  So I want to again congratulate all of those who have been involved: 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and others who have worked on this measure and to 
congratulate them for their hard work and to say that I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this rule that we will be offering and 
also in favor of the budget process reform package and vote ``yes'' on 
the biennial budgeting amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Forbes), the author of one of the amendments.
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and, 
unfortunately, in opposition to this bill, a bill that enjoys 
bipartisan opposition.
  Like many of my colleagues, I certainly want to see us reform the 
budget process so all Americans can understand how we are spending 
their tax dollars.
  Sadly, this bill does nothing to make the process better. Instead, I 
would suggest, it is going to make it worse. And nothing, I might add, 
nothing in this bill would end the annual political standoff that we 
see, the so-called train wrecks that characterize this budget process. 
There is nothing in this bill that would end those kind of stalemates.
  Unfortunately, this bill would give to the executive an inordinate 
amount of power. Currently, in these coequal branches of Government, we 
have the right of the executive to offer up his or her budget and the 
right of the legislature to, in turn, offer up their budget and then 
negotiate. But to require a joint resolution is to abdicate to the 
President an inordinate amount of power that takes away from the 
legislature its right to do the budgeting. I think that is 
inappropriate.
  I regret that this rule does not contain an amendment that I think is 
necessary. It takes a certain program for veterans and makes it 
uncertain. The majority would have us believe, for some reason, that 
they do not do this. But I would remind my colleagues that in this bill 
that we will be soon debating, this bill protects the certainty of 
Social Security while at the same time opening up an uncertainty for 
veterans' programs, for Medicare programs, and others.
  I had offered an amendment, frankly, that I hoped would be in 
bipartisan spirit accepted so that we could tell our veterans' 
community that, as we try to reform a budget process, we are not going 
to every 10 years subject them to the possible elimination of veterans' 
programs or Medicare programs.
  So I find it curious that they went to a great degree here to protect 
Social Security programs but they would not protect the Medicare 
programs, they would not protect the veterans' programs. I think this 
is a major weakness of this bill. It suggests to our veterans' 
community that the budget reform process is somehow more important than 
protecting a compact that we made with veterans so long ago.
  I urge my colleagues to look at the mail in their office from many 
veterans' organizations who are concerned about the tenuous nature that 
this leaves their programs in. I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
rule, to allow the committee to go back to the drawing board, include 
some protections for veterans, include protections for senior citizens, 
and then take another look at this budget reform process and start over 
again, take the good things out of it like emergency spending 
reservations and some of the things that we might want to get done 
here.
  Let us reform the process, but let us not make it worse, as this 
legislation would do. It would not avoid the annual train wrecks, the 
standoffs that we see between the President and the Congress; and I 
think it is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both 
sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 21 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules, very properly in my judgment, 
has acceded to my request long-standing now to include in the debate on 
the new budget process an amendment which would bring about forever an 
end to Government shutdowns.
  Lest there be anybody in the United States or in the western 
hemisphere who does not recognize the possibility and reality of a 
Government shutdown in the United States, let me remind everyone, for 
the record, that, in the last 20 years, more than 17 times the 
Government of the United States was at shutdown or near shutdown 
because of the inability of the Congress to pass appropriations bills 
and complete the budgets by September 30, the last day of the fiscal 
year.
  What happens in that case? When the budget is not completed, the next 
day, October 1, the Government automatically shuts down.
  How have we prevented that in the past when we have prevented it? By 
passing temporary continuing resolutions to keep the flow of 
appropriations going until the negotiations can be completed for a new 
budget to be adopted.
  Well, that always leads to a further deadline and yet another 
deadline; and

[[Page H3088]]

each time that deadline appears for the completion of a budget, lo and 
behold, Government shutdown or a threat of Government shutdown.
  What does that mean?
  It means not just that the Smithsonian Institute has to shut its 
doors, as happened several times while tourists are waiting to get in 
and unable to do so because the Smithsonian Institute is out of 
business with a Government shutdown, as is every other institution of 
our Government.
  That is so embarrassing and so shameful and so inappropriate that my 
legislation has to be passed simply to avoid the shame of a Government 
shutdown.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we discuss and debate how we can 
improve the budget and the budget process.
  Right now we are approaching $1.8 trillion in annual spending. We are 
dealing with overspending in the past that has left us with 
approximately a $5.7 trillion total national debt.
  We are going to talk about ways we can improve this process. We are 
going to talk about the hopeful ideas to increase the efficiency of 
budgeting and spending. But the bottom line is the intestinal fortitude 
and the will of the Members of Congress to do a better job.
  It does not make any difference if we have a 2-year budget with 
biennial or 1 year. I think biennial, by the way, shifts more power to 
the administrative branch. It does not matter if we have supplemental 
appropriations bills. It boils down to the determination, the will 
power to do a better job in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. That is 
the bottom line.
  The debate is going to be good. I congratulate the Committee on Rules 
for getting this before us.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, before any of us can speak on this floor, we first have 
to take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
  That Constitution was created by our Founding Fathers because they 
had a huge suspicion of power, especially executive power. That is why 
they created an Article I of the Constitution, the Congress of the 
United States, an independent branch of Government. And to keep it 
independent and to make certain that we would never have excess power 
in the hands of the executive, they lodged in this institution the 
power of the purse.

                              {time}  1330

  Today if we pass this proposal, we are walking away from our 
constitutional obligation to defend the power of the purse. The 
chairman of the Committee on Rules is absolutely right. There is 
absolutely nothing partisan about this debate. This is a debate about 
power and the use and misuse of power and how you best maintain checks 
on that use of power.
  I think there are two fundamental problems with this proposition. 
First of all, because we create a joint resolution instead of a 
concurrent resolution when the budget resolution passes, that means for 
the first time the President imposes himself right in the middle of 
Congress' obligation to define its own budget resolution. So the 
President gets two kicks at the cat: once when he submits his budget 
and then another when he puts together a huge budget summit out at 
Andrews or some other place like they have been in the past, and the 
President will come to totally dominate that debate. And every rank and 
file Member of this place will be on the outside looking in, passing 
notes in, hoping that a handful of people on the inside will give them 
an occasional listen. We do not want to do that.
  Secondly, it will enhance the power of the Senate vis-a-vis the 
House. The House has a Committee on Rules but the Senate runs on 
unanimous consent and a system of holds, and in order to get anything 
done in the Senate, the Senate leadership is going to be vulnerable to 
having any Senate chairman come to them and say, ``I'm not going to 
vote for your budget resolution unless you add my authorization bill to 
the budget resolution,'' and you will have a huge incentive to have 
everything but the kitchen sink added in the Senate.
  Secondly, we have another problem with this proposition, and that is 
2-year budgeting. Right now every year, every agency of government has 
to justify every action to the people's representatives. What will 
happen if we move to a system of 2-year budgeting is that we will move 
to a system of permanent supplementals and it is far more difficult to 
control spending on supplementals than it is on regular appropriation 
bills, because again in the House we have a germaneness rule, but in 
the Senate there is no germaneness rule. And so they can add virtually 
anything they want. That in my view weakens the House vis-a-vis the 
Senate; it allows Senators to add amendment after amendment and project 
after project. House Members will not have that same privilege or 
opportunity. And most of all, it makes the agencies of government even 
more independent of legislative power than they are right now. Because 
once you have passed an agency budget, they have their money for a 2-
year period and they do not have to come to this House for anything.
  Now, Members will say, ``Well, but if you have supplementals, they'll 
have to come back here for those.'' That is true. But supplementals are 
always to add money to their programs. They are programmatic 
supplementals. They have nothing whatsoever to do with agency staffing 
levels, agency bureaucratic structure, and so they will have been able 
to pocket what they want on the administrative end of their budgets, 
and that means that they will be far more immune to the legitimate 
Congressional questioning of their actions than they are right now. I 
think in the end that makes this institution fundamentally weaker in 
constitutional terms than it is right now, both vis-a-vis the executive 
branch of government and vis-a-vis the other body. I think both actions 
would be a mistake.
  I would urge the House to cast a bipartisan ``no'' on this 
proposition when we get the opportunity.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week I appeared before the Committee 
on Rules to focus attention on one section of H.R. 853 that threatens 
to undermine the American public's confidence in Medicare. I am 
referring to provisions in title IV that require authorizing committees 
to establish a schedule for sunsetting and reauthorizing all mandatory 
spending programs, including Medicare, over 10 years and that limit the 
authorization of any new mandatory program to 10 years.
  Congress needs to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely. 
However, the authorizing committees already have both the 
responsibility and authority to conduct such oversight. Lack of 
effective oversight is not a consequence of the way that the budget 
process operates. Nor is it due to the permanent authorization of 
fundamental programs such as Medicare. In fact, the authorizing 
committees regularly review the programs under their jurisdiction and 
report legislation updating them.
  The Committee on Ways and Means has regularly held hearings on 
Medicare and has proposed a number of reforms in recent years to 
modernize the program. For instance, we are now considering creating a 
prescription drug benefit for seniors that would, I hope, become part 
of Medicare. Why would we want to create the uncertainty of limiting a 
prescription drug benefit to only 10 years? And why should Medicare 
itself be put on a schedule that might call into doubt the future of 
the program? Such outcomes would do little good and possibly great 
harm.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation that weakens our existing budget process, our committees 
and the entire Congress and brings uncertainty to such programs like 
Medicare that millions of older Americans depend on for their very 
survival. I am puzzled and dismayed that my colleagues on the Committee 
on Rules refused to consider my amendment to exclude mandatory spending 
programs such as

[[Page H3089]]

 Medicare from this measure. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
the former governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in total support of the rule which I think allows 
amendments, some of which I will support, some of which I will not, but 
really in strong support of the legislation. I have been sitting here 
listening to this debate and it is sort of like inside baseball only it 
is inside Congress where we have various Members of Congress standing 
up and saying, well, this committee is going to have to give up 
jurisdiction or power to another committee, we have other people 
getting up and saying that the most likely things to always be 
reauthorized such as Medicare and veterans benefits and others may be 
threatened if we do away with this in 10 years, which is nonsense, that 
is never going to happen.
  My view is the public really does not care about this. What the 
public cares about is that we spend their money wisely. The public also 
cares greatly that we sit down with the President of the United States 
and that together, even though we are in different parties and have 
differences of opinion, which we should, that we sit down and we work 
out a budget process which is fiscally sound and which accommodates the 
problems that exist in the United States of America. They are not 
interested in the committee fights. They are not interested in the 
politics of Congress. They are not interested in the politics of 
Washington. They are interested in good spending of their money.
  Believe me, this legislation, this process, budget process reform 
legislation more than any legislation I have seen since I have been 
here incorporates, particularly with some of the amendments which are 
hopefully going to be addressed to it, the aspects of budgeting which 
would make a huge difference in terms of how we present ourselves to 
the public by making sure that the money we spend is not just for the 
district of a particular Member of Congress or committee or whatever it 
may be but in the best interests of the people of the United States of 
America. So I applaud all those people who put it together.
  I would like particularly to address just one aspect of it because I 
do not have unlimited time, and that is the emergency spending 
provisions. I have been pushing for this since I arrived in the 
Congress some 7 or 8 years ago now, because I am a strong believer that 
we should limit how we spend emergency spending. In 1994, we passed 
legislation to prevent nonemergency spending from being added to 
emergency spending bills. That sounded all well and good at the time. I 
thought it was a good act until I realized you can call anything an 
emergency here in the House of Representatives.
  What is the problem with emergency spending? The problem is it is 
completely unrestricted, it is very open-ended, there is no 
accountability for it. You do it on requests that come in from various 
sources, States, in the case of emergencies, military or whatever it 
may be. There are absolutely no limits. It is not counted against the 
other money which we have spent. We do not appropriate it. In spite of 
the fact they do that in virtually every State in this country, we do 
not do it in the Congress of the United States. This is extra money 
which is added to the debt that we have in this country. So as a matter 
of course, I think we are taking the wrong steps with respect to how we 
are handling emergency spending.
  How do we do this? We basically set forth in this legislation a sum 
of money equal to a 5-year rolling average, we set up a group which 
will look at that, will look at the emergencies as they come in, make 
the decisions, make sure that the appropriations are made through our 
regular appropriations process, not added to the debt and then they 
will do the accounting as that money is spent. It is pretty simple, it 
is a little more complex than that, but it is the way to go.
  It is a good bill, that is a good measure, it is something we should 
pass, it is bipartisan, and I hope we get a strong bipartisan vote in 
favor of the rule and the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who has been 
instrumental in providing a good deal of the substance for this 
particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. It is in fact my purpose to rise to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who 
chaired the budget task force that produced this product, along with 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and, of course, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who did such good 
work on this in his capacity as a member of the task force, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules. All of the people who are associated with this project are 
owed a great debt of gratitude by the Members of this House and indeed 
by the other body as well, because proposals to overhaul the badly 
broken budget process have been under debate and under consideration in 
this Congress for as long as I have been here.
  I came to Congress 12 years ago, having already spent 2 years working 
as a lawyer for President Reagan in the White House trying to overhaul 
our badly broken budget process. President Reagan in 1986 appointed a 
White House working group on budget process reform, a Cabinet level 
working group, that put together many of the recommendations that have 
found their way into this legislation.
  I did not know at the time that 2 years later I would be a Member of 
this House myself, but in my initial term in Congress I was the cochair 
of a task force on budget process reform that produced legislation very 
similar to this that had over 100 sponsors the first year that it was 
introduced. I introduced that legislation in successive Congresses. In 
the 105th Congress it had over 200 sponsors. The legislation was 
introduced and authored on the Senate side, in the other body, by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  What is before us right now is not about Republicans and Democrats. 
It is not about more spending or less spending. It is not about higher 
taxes or lower taxes. It is about doing business properly, in an 
organized way. It means that we are going to have a budget first and 
spending second. In this legislation, it is made very plain that we are 
not to get to the business of spending money until we have agreed 
between the executive branch and the legislative branch on the outer 
limits of what we think we can afford. It is the same way that anyone 
would produce a budget in the private sector, in a nonprofit 
organization or in your own home.
  In Congress, too often for many years we have simply spent money on 
what we considered to be worthy projects and added it up at the end to 
find out what our budget was. Our budget was nothing more or less than 
the residue of all those small decisions, or all those relatively small 
decisions. Our budget, since 1974, has been a nonbinding resolution.

                              {time}  1345

  We can ignore it if we please. We can even not pass a budget if we 
please. We have supplemental bills that come to the floor whenever 
there is a natural disaster that break the budget. If we happen to have 
a horrible earthquake or flood in a given year, no provision is made 
for it, no forethought, as if these things had never happened before in 
our country. So, in a cash budget, all of the money runs out of 
operations in that current year.
  None of these things is consistent with the way a significant 
substantial operation in America today conducts its business. Least of 
all, is this the way a trillion dollar annual enterprise should run its 
business? The Budget Process Reform Act, which I am very, very happy to 
see come to the floor under this rule, gives us an opportunity, a first 
opportunity after many, many years of effort, to rationalize all of 
this work that we do here.
  Also one more important thing needs to be said about this: The 
process will become increasingly transparent, understandable to our 
constituents. The budget process has been very arcane in the past. 
Making it clearer for everyone to understand inside of Congress and 
outside of Congress is yet another noble objective of this legislation.

[[Page H3090]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the rule for being broad and including 
many amendments, and I want to commend the legislation to all of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I speak on one aspect 
of the bill and the rule, and, although it is only one aspect, I think 
it is a serious enough problem that it warrants the rejection of the 
rule. The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, H.R. 853, contains 
serious problems that I think could actually weaken Congress' ability 
to budget. Unfortunately, the rule before us today does nothing to 
improve this flawed bill.
  Last week I proposed an amendment before the Committee on Rules to 
address one section of the legislation that is particularly troubling, 
the section that calls for Federal mandatory spending programs to be 
sunsetted. Others have addressed this problem today. If this language 
becomes law, important benefits that our constituents rely on, 
Medicare, veterans' benefits, student loans, will lose their permanence 
and their existence will be made subject to the whims of future 
Congresses.
  My amendment would have exempted the Federal student loan programs 
from these provisions. Unfortunately, the amendment was not made in 
order.
  Now, many of us would like to see improvements in the budget process. 
I sit on the Committee on the Budget and I can imagine some 
improvements we should make. But I do not believe a majority of 
Members, Republican, Democratic or independent, really believe that the 
problems in the budget process are due to the permanent authorization 
of essential programs such as student loans.
  The Committee on Rules should have, I think, shown more willingness 
to work in a bipartisan fashion and allowed my amendment to be 
considered. The people we represent, America's students and their 
parents, need to know that the Federal student loan program will be 
there when they need it. These programs and the legislation that 
created them were designed to give stability and certainty to the 
financial future planning process. Their existence should not be 
subject to the whims of a future Congress and President, regardless of 
which party is in power.
  We want our families to plan ahead for college education for their 
children, and they should know that the student loan program will be 
around for the long term. They should know that the student loan 
program will be around for the long term, that they can count on it for 
their future planning.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
rule, so that my amendment and other amendments to improve this bill 
may be offered.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We 
have bipartisan support in opposition to this bill.
  I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke eloquently 
about some of the pitfalls of the existing conditions of the bill as it 
exists right now. My friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
talked about exchange of power and that our people do not care. Well, 
the framers of the Constitution understood that too much power in the 
hands of a single source will corrupt, and it will.
  I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is a 
very frustrating process, both for them and for us as well, but I think 
the framers of the Constitution understood that, and it should be 
difficult to pass things, because if too much power on the left is 
there, too much power on the right is there, then it is going to be 
lopsided, and the framers understood that it should be difficult so 
that no single group can tilt the scales.
  Is it frustrating? Absolutely. But the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) talks about in-house, he says ``Republicans are our 
adversary; the Senate is our enemy.'' That is because a single Senator 
can stop legislation over there. That is too much power in one hand. 
This body is going to attempt to do the same thing by shifting the 
power to the White House.
  Imagine, the President's budget failed 425 to 2 in this body, and 94 
to 6 in the Senate because it was a political bill, too much power. Can 
you imagine what would have happened if we had given that power to the 
White House?
  The Constitution, under Article I, says that Congress shall initiate 
spending bills. By that, the President has two whacks at it. As has 
been mentioned before, that is a spreading of power, and that is good.
  What this bill attempts to do I believe is wrong. I would support the 
Gekas amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking minority member on the 
Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to admit that the budget process 
needs an overhaul, but not this overhaul, not this bill, for many 
reasons. It is not the right fix. Parts of it I agree with, but many 
parts of it not only are not the right fix, I think they would be 
counterproductive.
  Back in 1990, we sat down in earnest with the budget process as part 
of the budget summit agreement, and we made some budget process changes 
that laid the foundation for deficit reduction throughout the last 
decade and for the surpluses that we enjoy today. We adopted what we 
call a ``pay-as-you-go'' rule, a pay-go rule, with respect to tax cuts 
and entitlements. Basically, we said nobody can worsen the deficit. If 
you want to propose a tax cut, you have got to have an offsetting tax 
increase or an offsetting decrease or cut in entitlement, or permanent 
spending, and if you want to add to or liberalize the entitlement 
benefit, you have to identify a revenue stream to pay for it or 
diminish some other entitlement benefit so it is deficit neutral.
  This rule served us well. But recently, in recent years, we have 
flouted it, and flouted it with impunity. We started this budget year, 
this legislative session, with a major tax cut bill.
  I stood right here in the well of the House and said this bill 
violates pay-go. It also violates section 303(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act, which basically says that pieces of legislation of this 
significance, whether they are spending legislation or tax legislation, 
will not be considered until we have a budget resolution. It was 
ignored.
  Now, today, we bring this bill to the House floor which would change 
the architecture of our budget process, and yet the most significant 
fault right now, the most significant fault with our budget process, is 
the fact that the discretionary spending ceilings that we established 
back in 1990, set again in 1993, reset again in 1997, are an 
anachronism today. They are out of date.
  The ceiling which we legislated several years ago for fiscal year 
2001 is $541 billion. The 302 allocation to the Committee on 
Appropriations and the budget resolution that the Congress passed 
exceeds that ceiling by $60 billion. That is not small change. That is 
not a non-trivial excess.
  The 302 allocation is $600.3 billion, $60 billion above the ceiling. 
We have got that problem, and the consequence of it, if we do not do 
something about it, is sequestration, an automatic process we set up 
for across-the-board cuts. The committee and the Congress were able to 
avoid it by function 920, unallocated cuts in the budget resolution. 
That is just treading water. We have got that problem.
  We today started the appropriations process with the military 
construction appropriations bill. The first order of business, if we 
are starting the appropriations process, should be to adjust these 
ceilings, because we all know that the appropriators are not going to 
cut those 13 bills down to $541 billion. They will be lucky to bring 
them in at $600.3 billion.
  If we were earnest, sincere about amending the budget process, we 
would

[[Page H3091]]

do something about the pay-go rule and violations like the bill we 
brought to the floor where section 303(a) was just totally ignored, and 
we would do something right now, here and now, with the most immediate 
and relevant problem with the budget process, and that is, the fact 
that we are well above, inevitably going to be far above, the 
discretionary spending ceiling, and we are going to trigger 
sequestration.
  That is the order of business today, and that is why we ought to vote 
down this rule and get down to what we really should be doing in the 
way of budget process and budgeting.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to make 
in order three amendments: An amendment by the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Berkley) to protect any new prescription drug benefits and 
Medicare programs; an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Forbes) to protect veterans benefits; and an amendment by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) to protect student loan programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment I will offer in the Congressional Record, to appear 
immediately before the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will just take a minute to close up here.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all I think that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) hit it pretty well on the head in his remarks that this is 
really not a partisan matter, and it is certainly not a partisan rule. 
Consequently, I cannot think of a reason not to support the rule. The 
rule is, I think, a good rule, and it clearly will get us to the 
debate, which is the purpose of rules.
  We have been having a lot of conversation here and testimony about 
the elements and the substance of the legislation. The purpose is to 
get that forward into the debate mode, and that is what this rule 
purports to do.
  I think obviously there are differing opinions on the various pieces 
that we have talked about on our budget process reform. We know we need 
some reform. Some think it is too much, some think it is too little, 
some think we have the right pieces, some think we have the wrong 
pieces. Obviously, we should have the debate. The rule gets us to the 
debate. I suggest we follow the logic of that, vote for the rule, get 
on with the debate and vote up or down the pieces you like or do not 
like.
  As for some concerns we have heard a little bit about here on these 
three carveouts that were not made in order in the Committee on Rules, 
I suppose it would have been possible to make a bunch of carveouts for 
special elements and special programs. I do not know where one stops 
and starts that process. Do we leave out the environmentalist issues? 
Do we leave out the defense issues? Do we leave out one program or 
another at the expense of another? It seemed to us on the Committee on 
Rules, at least on the majority side, if you give one carveout, you 
tilt the budget process. We are talking about budget process reform, 
with a clean slate. Consequently, we did not make those amendments in 
order.
  Now, those amendments have been, I believe, mischaracterized, perhaps 
inadvertently, as sunset. I do not believe the word ``sunset'' shows up 
anywhere, and I think if you go to your word processor, I do not think 
you are going to find any program sunsetted, certainly not veterans or 
students or the Medicare programs.
  So I would suggest what is happening here is that perhaps over some 
confusion about the word ``sunset,'' which is not warranted in any way, 
that what we are calling for in budget process reform is enhanced 
transparency, enhanced accountability and enhanced oversight.

                              {time}  1400

  Now, if enhanced oversight, that is reviewing programs every 10 years 
or so, which is kind of the thing we are sent here to do on behalf of 
the people we represent who pay us our salaries, is threatening, then 
that is a debate we can have; but I suggest that really our 
responsibility is to make sure the taxpayers' dollars are being used 
wisely, and I believe that is called oversight.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. I used the word 
``sunset'' when I should have said ``sunset like.'' It was not a 
sunset; it was just looking at it after 10 years and then deciding 
whether to sunset it.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the clarification. The 
brilliance of it, I am sure, will shine through immediately to 
everybody.
  In any event, there is no sunsetting and the fact that we are 
reviewing programs every 10 years, I hope, does not come as an alarm 
bell. I hope it comes as confidence that Congress is doing its job. 
That is, as I said, what we are supposed to be here for.
  I do not feel that there is anything except politics involved in 
these things that suggest even that somehow veterans' programs are 
going to not survive after 10 years or students' programs or so forth.
  It reminds me of those Meals on Wheels scares and the school lunch 
scares that we went through a few years ago that were made out of, 
well, I guess I will not say what they were made out of but they were 
not true, and I do not think that these are serious worries. I think 
these are perhaps political debating points and they do not deserve 
much attention.
  Therefore, I am going to ask that we move the previous question and 
we support the move for the previous question and then we support the 
rule and then we support those elements of this good legislation that 
we like.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to H. Res. 499 that I 
previously spoke of is as follows:

      Amendment to be Offered if the Previous Question is Defeated

 Amendment to H. Res. 499, Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 853

       On page 3, line 8 after ``Rules'' add ``or in section 2 of 
     this resolution'' and at the end of the resolution, add the 
     following:
       ``Section 2. The following amendments shall be considered 
     as if they appeared after the amendment numbered 7 in House 
     Report 106-613.
       8. An amendment to be offered by Representative Berkley of 
     Nevada, or a designee, debatable for 20 minutes.


                      protect the medicare program

       Strike section 411 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 411. FIXED-YEAR AUTHORIZATIONS REQUIRED FOR NEW 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(b) Limitation of Direct Spending.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives or in the Senate to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment, motion, 
     or conference report that provides direct spending for a new 
     program, unless such spending is limited to a period of 10 or 
     fewer fiscal years.
       ``(c) Limitation on Authorization of Discretionary 
     Appropriations.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or in the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that authorizes 
     the appropriation of new budget authority for a new program, 
     unless such authorization is specifically provided for a 
     period of 10 or fewer fiscal years.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), 
     striking ``(a) and (b)'' both places it appears in such 
     redesignated subsection (d) and inserting ``(a), (b), and 
     (c)'', and inserting the following new paragraph in such 
     redesignated subsection (d):
       ``(3) Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any new 
     prescription drug benefit.''.
       Strike subsection (a) of section 421 and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (a) Timetable for Review.--Clause 2(d)(1) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking 
     subdivisions (B) and (C) and inserting the following new 
     subdivisions:
       ``(B) provide in its plans a specific timetable for its 
     review of those laws, programs, or agencies within its 
     jurisdiction, including those that operate under permanent 
     budget authority or permanent statutory authority and such 
     timetable shall demonstrate that each law, program, or agency 
     within the

[[Page H3092]]

     committee's jurisdiction will be reauthorized at least once 
     every 10 years; and
       ``(C) exempt the medicare trust fund from the provisions of 
     subdivision (B).''.
       9. An amendment to be offered by Representative Forbes of 
     New York, or a designee, debatable for 20 minutes.


                       protect veterans' benefits

       Strike section 411 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 411 FIXED-YEAR AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED FOR NEW PROGRAMS.

       Section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(b) Limitation on Direct Spending.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives or in the Senate to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment, motion, 
     or conference report that provides direct spending for a new 
     program, unless such spending is limited to a period of 10 or 
     fewer fiscal years.
       ``(c) Limitation on Authorization of Discretionary 
     Appropriations.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or in the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that authorizes 
     the appropriation of new budget authority for a new program, 
     unless such authorization is specifically provided for a 
     period of 10 or fewer fiscal years.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), 
     striking ``(a) and (b)'' both places it appears in such 
     redesignated subsection (d) and inserting ``(a), (b), and 
     (c)'', and inserting the following new paragraph in such 
     redesignated subsection (d):
       ``(3) Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any new 
     veterans benefit, program, and compensation.''.
       Strike subsection (a) of section 421 and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (a) Timetable for Review.--Clause 2(d)(1) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking 
     subdivisions (B) and (C) and inserting the following new 
     subdivisions:
       ``(B) provide in its plans a specific timetable for its 
     review of those laws, programs, or agencies within its 
     jurisdiction, including those that operate under permanent 
     budget authority or permanent statutory authority and such 
     timetable shall demonstrate that each law, program, or agency 
     within the committee's jurisdiction will be reauthorized at 
     least once every 10 years; and
       ``(C) exempt veterans benefits from the provisions of 
     subdivision (B) program, and compensation.''.
       10. An amendment to be offered by Representative Holt of 
     New Jersey, or a designee, debatable for 20 minutes.


                     protect student loan programs

       Strike section 411 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 411. FIXED-YEAR AUTHORIZATIONS REQUIRED FOR NEW 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(b) Limitation on Direct Spending.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives or in the Senate to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment, motion, 
     or conference report that provides direct spending for a new 
     program, unless such spending is limited to a period of 10 or 
     fewer fiscal years.
       ``(c) Limitation on Authorization of Discretionary 
     Appropriations.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or in the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that authorizes 
     the appropriation of new budget authority for a new program, 
     unless such authorization is specifically provided for a 
     period of 10 or fewer fiscal years.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), 
     striking ``(a) and (b)'' both places it appears in such 
     redesignated subsection (d) and inserting ``(a), (b), and 
     (c)'', and inserting the following new paragraph in such 
     redesignated subsection (d):
       ``(3) Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any new 
     student loan program.''.
       Strike subsection (a) of section 421 and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (a) Timetable for Review.--Clause 2(d)(1) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking 
     subdivisions (B) and (C) and inserting the following new 
     subdivisions:
       ``(B) provide in its plans a specific timetable for its 
     review of those laws, programs, or agencies within its 
     jurisdiction, including those that operate under permanent 
     budget authority or permanent statutory authority and such 
     timetable shall demonstrate that each law, program, or agency 
     within the committee's jurisdiction will be reauthorized at 
     least once every 10 years; and
       ``(C) exempt student loan programs from the provisions of 
     subdivision (B).''.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). 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. MOAKLEY. 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 clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers

[[Page H3093]]


     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ackerman
     Campbell
     Danner
     Franks (NJ)
     Largent
     LoBiondo
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Nadler
     Stupak
     Udall (NM)

                              {time}  1421

  Mr. SHOWS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. METCALF, MOORE, and HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 185, I was 
detained by constituents and was unable to get to the floor in time. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________