[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12632-12639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  STATUS REPORT ON CURRENT SPENDING LEVELS OF ON-BUDGET SPENDING AND 
   REVENUES FOR FY 2000 AND THE 5-YEAR PERIOD FY 2000 THROUGH FY 2004

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, to facilitate application of sections 302 
and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I am transmitting a status 
report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for 
fiscal year 2000 and for the 5-year period of fiscal year 2000 through 
fiscal year 2004.
  The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and 
revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or 
awaiting the President's signature as of June 15, 2000.
  The first table in the report compares the current level of total 
budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set 
by H. Con. Res. 290. This comparison is needed to implement section 
311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against 
measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. 
The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after 
fiscal year 2000.
  The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and 
outlays of each direct spending committee with the ``section 302(a)'' 
allocations for discretionary action made under H. Con. Res. 290 for 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal years 2000 through 2004. ``Discretionary 
action'' refers to legislation enacted after adoption of the budget 
resolution. This comparison is needed to implement section 302(f) of 
the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that 
would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new 
budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is 
also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that 
comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 
311(a).
  The third table compares the current levels of discretionary 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 with the revised ``section 302(a)'' 
sub-allocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among 
Appropriations subcommittees. This comparison is also needed to 
implement section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order 
under that section also applies to measures that would breach the 
applicable section 302(b) sub-allocation.
  The fourth table compares discretionary appropriations to the levels 
provided by section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985. Section 251 requires that, if at the end of a 
session discretionary spending in any category exceeds the limits set 
forth in section 251(c) (as adjusted pursuant to provisions of section 
251(b)), there shall be a sequestration of funds within that category 
to bring spending within the established limits. This table is provided 
for information purposes only. Determination of the need for a 
sequestration is based on the report of the President required by 
section 254.

  REPORT TO THE SPEAKER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET--STATUS OF THE
    FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ADOPTED IN H. CON. RES. 290
 [Reflecting action completed as of June 15, 2000--On-budget amounts, in
                          millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                                    2000      2000-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate level (as amended):
    Budget authority..........................    1,471,750        (\1\)
    Outlays...................................    1,453,390        (\1\)
    Revenues..................................    1,465,500    7,768,100
Current level:
    Budget authority..........................    1,465,562        (\1\)
    Outlays...................................     1,44,558        (\1\)
    Revenues..................................    1,465,492    7,871,246
Current level over (+)/under (-) appropriate
 level:
    Budget authority..........................       -6,188        (\1\)
    Outlays...................................       -8,832        (\1\)
    Revenues..................................           -8      103,146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable because annual appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year
  2001 through 2004 will not be considered until future sessions of
  Congress.

                            budget authority

       Enactment of any measure providing new budget authority for 
     FY 2000 of more than $6,188,000,000 (if not already included 
     in the current level estimate) would cause FY 2000 budget 
     authority to exceed the appropriate level set by H. Con. Res. 
     290.


                                outlays

       Enactment of any measure providing new outlays for FY 2000 
     of more than $8,832,000,000 (if not already included in the 
     current level estimate) would cause FY 2000 outlays to exceed 
     the appropriate level set by H. Con. Res. 290.


                                revenues

       Enactment of any measure resulting in any revenue loss for 
     FY 2000 through 2004 in excess of $103,146,0000,000 (if not 
     already included in the current level) would cause revenues 
     to fall below the appropriate levels set by H. Con. Res. 290.

[[Page 12633]]



   DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO BUDGET ACT
                         SECTION 302(a) REFLECTING ACTION COMPLETED AS OF JUNE 15, 2000
                                      [Fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2000                              2000-2004
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 BA              Outlays             BA              Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Committee:
    Agriculture:
        Allocation......................            5,500             5,500            13,489            12,533
        Current level...................            5,500             5,500            13,485            12,559
        Difference......................  ................  ................               (4)               26
    Armed Services:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Banking and Financial Services:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................             (968)
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................              968
    Commerce:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................               10                10
        Difference......................  ................  ................               10                10
    Education & the Workforce:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Government Reform & Oversight:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    House Administration:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    International Relations:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Judiciary:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................             (456)             (410)
        Difference......................  ................  ................             (456)             (410)
    Resources:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................              121                 6
        Current level...................                7                 3                13                13
        Difference......................                7                 3              (108)                7
    Science:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Select Committee on Intelligence:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Small Business:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Transportation & Infrastructure:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Veterans' Affairs:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................            4,666             4,492
        Current level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................           (4,666)           (4,492)
    Ways and Means:
        Allocation......................              (50)  ................            3,012             3,064
        Current level...................               53                52                21                20
        Difference......................              103                52            (2,991)           (3,044)
    Total authorized:
        Allocation......................            5,450             5,500            21,288            19,127
        Current level...................            5,560             5,555            13,073            12,192
        Difference......................              110                55            (8,215)           (6,935)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH SUBALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO BUDGET ACT SECTION 302(b)
                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            302(b) suballocations last       Current level reflecting               Difference
                                                          updated on October 12, 1999\1\    action completed as of June  -------------------------------
                                                         --------------------------------            15, 2000
                                                                                         --------------------------------       BA               O
                                                                BA               O              BA               O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Rural Development..........................          13,882          14,346          14,614         14,830             732             484
Commerce, Justice, State................................          35,774          34,907          38,095         38,356           2,321           3,449
National Defense........................................         267,692         259,130         268,605        261,933             913           2,803
District of Columbia....................................             453             448             430            501             (23)             53
Energy & Water Development..............................          20,190          20,140          21,094         21,275             904           1,135
Foreign Operations......................................          12,625          13,168          15,306         13,527           2,681             359
Interior................................................          13,888          14,354          14,769         14,833             881             479
Labor, HHS & Education..................................          75,763          77,063          86,451         86,345          10,688           9,282
Legislative Branch......................................           2,478           2,484           2,449          2,448             (29)            (36)
Military Construction...................................           8,374           8,775           8,352          8,595             (22)           (180)
Transportation \2\......................................          12,400          43,445          12,493         43,502              93              57
Treasury-Postal Service.................................          13,706          14,115          13,761         14,231              55             116
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies.............................          68,633          82,045          72,104         83,445           3,471           1,400
Reserve/Offsets.........................................               0               0               0              0               0               0
Unassigned \3\..........................................          22,719          14,326               0           (768)        (22,719)        (15,094)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total.......................................         568,577         598,746         568,523        603,053             (54)          4,307
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Appropriations Committee did not revise the fiscal year 2000 302(b) suballocations after the passage of H. Con. Res. 290.
\2\ Transportation does not include mass transit BA.
\3\ Unassigned refers to the allocation adjustments provided under Section 314, but not yet allocated under Section 302(b).


[[Page 12634]]


                     COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LEVELS SET FORTH IN SEC. 251(c) OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985
                                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Defense \1\           Nondefense \1\          General purpose       Violent Crime Trust      Highway category      Mass transit category
                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------          Fund          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         ------------------------
                                                      BA           O          BA           O          BA           O          BA           O          BA           O          BA           O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Caps \2\..............................          NA          NA          NA          NA     566,472     564,913       4,500       6,344          NA      24,574          NA       4,117
Current Level \3\...............................     289,927     283,543     274,110     283,549     564,037     567,092       4,486       6,999           0      24,393          NA       4,569
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Difference (Current level-caps)...........          NA          NA          NA          NA      -2,435       2,179         -14         655          NA        -181          NA        452
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Defense and nondefense categories are advisory rather than statutory.
\2\ Established by OMB Budget Enforcement Act Preview Report.
\3\ Consistent with H. Con. Res. 290.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report shows the effects of 
     Congressional action on the fiscal year 2000 budget and is 
     current through June 15, 2000. This report is submitted under 
     section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act, as amended.
       The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues 
     are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of 
     H. Con. Res. 290, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
     Fiscal Year 2001, which replace H. Con. Res. 68, the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000.
       Since the beginning of the second session of the 106th 
     Congress, in addition to the changes in budget authority, 
     outlays, and revenues from adopting H. Con. Res. 290, the 
     Congress has cleared and the President has signed an act to 
     amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (P.L. 106-171), the Omnibus 
     Parks Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-176), the 
     Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
     21st Century (P.L. 106-181), the Civil Asset Forfeiture 
     Reform Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-185), and the Trade and 
     Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-200). In addition, the 
     Congress cleared for the President's signature the 
     Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 2559).
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert A. Sunshine
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director.)
       Enclosure.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2000 HOUSE CURRENT STATUS REPORT AS OF JUNE 15, 2000
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget
                                                                     authority        Outlays        Revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted in previous sessions:
    Revenues....................................................               0               0       1,465,500
    Permanents and other spending legislation...................         876,422         836,631               0
    Appropriation legislation...................................         869,318         889,756               0
    Offsetting receipts.........................................        -284,184        -284,184               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, enacted in previous sessions.......................       1,461,556       1,442,203       1,465,500
Enacted this session:
    Omnibus Parks Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-                 7               3               0
     176).......................................................
    Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment & Reform Act for the               2,805               0               0
     21st Century (P.L. 106-181)................................
    Trade and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-200)............              53              52              -8
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, enacted this session...............................           2,865              55              -8
Cleared pending signature:
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 2559)........           5,500           5,500               0
Total current level \1\.........................................       1,465,562       1,444,558       1,465,492
Total budget resolution.........................................       1,471,750       1,453,390       1,465,500
    Current level over budget resolution........................               0               0               0
    Current level under budget resolution.......................          -6,188          -8,832              -8
Memorandum:
    Revenues, 2000-2004:
        House current level.....................................               0               0       7,871,246
        House budget resolution.................................               0               0       7,768,100
          Current level over budget resolution..................               0               0         103,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act in the House, the budget resolution
  does not include budget authority or outlays for Social Security administrative expenses. As a result, current
  level excludes these items. In addition, for comparability purposes, current level budget authority excludes
  $1,159 million that was appropriated for mass transit.
 
Note.--P.L.=Public Law.
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

  STATUS REPORT ON CURRENT SPENDING LEVELS OF ON-BUDGET SPENDING AND 
   REVENUES FOR FY 2001 AND THE 5-YEAR PERIOD FY 2001 THROUGH FY 2005

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the application of sections 
302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 202 and 203 of 
the conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 290, I am transmitting 
a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and 
revenues for fiscal year 2001 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 
2001 through fiscal year 2005.
  The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and 
revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or 
awaiting the President's signature as of June 15, 2000.
  The first table in the report compares the current levels of total 
budget authority, outlays, revenues, the surplus and advance 
appropriations with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 290. 
This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget Act 
and sections 202 and 203(b) of H. Con. Res. 290, which create points of 
order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's 
aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays 
for years after fiscal year 2001 because appropriations for those years 
have not yet been considered.
  The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and 
outlays of each direct spending committee with the ``section 302(a)'' 
allocations for discretionary action made under H. Con. Res. 290 for 
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal years 2001 through 2005. ``Discretionary 
action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget 
resolution. This comparison is needed to implement section 302(f) of 
the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that 
would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new 
budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is 
also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that 
comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 
311(a).
  The third table compares the current levels of discretionary 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 with the revised ``section 302(b)'' 
sub-allocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among 
Appropriations subcommittees. This comparison is also needed to 
implement section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order 
under that section also applies to measures that would breach the 
applicable section 302(b) sub-allocation.
  The fourth table compares discretionary appropriations to the levels 
provided by section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985. Section 251 requires that, if at the end of a 
session discretionary spending in any category exceeds the limits set 
forth in section 251(c) (as adjusted pursuant to section 251(b)), there 
shall be a sequestration of amounts within that category to bring 
spending within the established limits. This table is provided for 
information purposes only. The determination of the need for a 
sequestration is based on the report of the President required by 
section 254.

  REPORT TO THE SPEAKER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET--STATUS OF THE
    FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ADOPTED IN H. CON. RES. 290
 [Reflecting action completed as of June 15, 2000--On-budget amounts, in
                          millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                                    2001      2001-2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approprate Level (as amended):
    Budget Authority..........................    1,529,886          (1)
    Outlays...................................    1,495,196          (1)
    Revenues..................................    1,503,200    8,022,400
    Surplus...................................        8,004          (1)
    Advance Appropriations....................       23,500          (1)
Current Level:
    Budget Authority..........................      952,967          (1)
    Outlays...................................    1,149,381          (1)
    Revenues..................................    1,514,241    8,169,171
    Surplus...................................      364,860          (1)
    Advance Appropriations....................            0          (1)
Current Level over (+)/under(-) Approprate
 Level:
    Budget Authority..........................     -576,919          (1)
    Outlays...................................     -345,815          (1)
    Revenues..................................       11,041      146,771
    Surplus...................................      356,856          (1)

[[Page 12635]]

 
    Advance Appropriations....................      -23,500          (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Not applicable because annual appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years
  2002 through 2005 will not be considered until future sessions of
  Congress.

                            BUDGET AUTHORITY

       Enactment of any measure providing new budget authority for 
     FY 2001 (if not already included in the current level 
     estimate) in excess of $576,919,000,000 would cause FY 2001 
     budget authority to exceed the appropriate level set by H. 
     Con. Res. 290.


                                OUTLAYS

       Enactment of any measure providing new outlays for FY 2001 
     in excess of $345,815,000,000 (if not already included in the 
     current level estimate) would cause FY 2001 outlays to exceed 
     the appropriate level set by H. Con. Res. 290.


                                REVENUES

       Enactment of any measure that would result in any revenue 
     loss for FY 2001 in excess of $11,041,000,000 (if not already 
     included in the current level estimate) would cause revenues 
     to fall below the appropriate level set by H. Con. Res. 290.
       Enactment of any measure resulting in any revenue loss for 
     FY 2001 through 2005 in excess of $146,771,000,000 (if not 
     already included in the current level) would cause revenues 
     to fall below the appropriate levels set by H. Con. Res. 290.


                                SURPLUS

       Enactment of any measure that reduces the surplus for FY 
     2001 by more than $356,856,000,000 (if not already included 
     in the current level estimate)( would cause FY 2001 surplus 
     to fall below the appropriate level set by Section 2092 of H. 
     Con. Res. 290.


                         ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

       Enactment of any measure that would result in FY 2001 
     advance appropriations in excess of $23,500,000,000 (if not 
     already included in the current level estimate) would cause 
     the FY 2001 advance appropriations to exceed the appropriate 
     level set by Section 203(b) of H. Con. Res. 290.
                                  ____


   DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO BUDGET ACT
                         SECTION 302(a), REFLECTING ACTION COMPLETED AS OF JUNE 15, 2000
                                     [Fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2001                              2001-2005
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 BA              Outlays             BA              Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Committee:
    Agriculture:
        Allocation......................            3,062             2,295             9,837             8,824
        Current Level...................            3,061             2,166             9,787             8,833
        Difference......................               (1)             (129)              (50)                9
    Armed Services:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Banking and Financial Services:
        Allocation......................  ................             (107)  ................           (1,329)
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................              107   ................            1,329
    Commerce:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................               15                15
        Difference......................  ................  ................               15                15
    Education & the Workforce:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Government Reform & Oversight:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    House Administration:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    International Relations:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Judiciary:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................             (114)              (75)             (570)             (524)
        Difference......................             (114)              (75)             (570)             (524)
    Resources:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................              162                44
        Current Level...................                8                 6                 6                10
        Difference......................                8                 6              (156)              (34)
    Science:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Select Committee on Intelligence:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Small Business:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Transportation & Infrastructure:
        Allocation......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Veterans' Affairs:
        Allocation......................              510               479             7,280             7,037
        Current Level...................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Difference......................             (510)             (479)           (7,280)           (7,037)
    Ways and Means:
        Allocation......................               55                25             3,035             3,038
        Current Level...................              (47)              (47)              (29)              (28)
        Difference......................             (102)              (72)           (3,064)           (3,066)
    Total Authorized:
        Allocation......................            3,627             2,692            20,314            17,614
        Current Level...................            2,908             2,050             9,209             8,306
        Difference......................             (719)             (642)          (11,105)           (9,308)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12636]]


        DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH SUBALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO BUDGET ACT SECTION 302(b)
                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Revised 302(b) suballocations     Current level reflecting
                                                          as of June 8, 2000 (H. Rpt.    action completed as  of June
                                                                   106-660)                        15, 2000                Difference
                                                       ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              BA               O              BA               O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Rural Development........................          14,491          14,974              42           3,882         (14,449)         (11,092)
Commerce, Justice, State..............................          34,904          35,977             283          12,279         (34,621)         (23,698)
National Defense......................................         288,414         279,025               0          89,078        (288,414)        (189,947)
District of Columbia..................................             414             414               0              36            (414)            (378)
Energy & Water Development............................          21,743          22,025               0           7,908         (21,743)         (14,117)
Foreign Operations....................................          13,281           8,512               0           9,859         (13,281)           1,347
Interior..............................................          14,742          15,322              36           5,399         (14,706)          (9,923)
Labor, HHS & Education................................          97,159          91,156          18,954          64,188         (78,205)         (26,968)
Legislative Branch....................................           2,355           2,383               0             352          (2,355)          (2,031)
Military Construction.................................           8,634           8,684               0           6,101          (8,634)          (2,583)
Transportation \1\....................................          14,989          48,513              20          28,651         (14,969)         (19,862)
Treasury-Postal Service...............................          14,088          14,563              62           3,202         (14,026)         (11,361)
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies...........................          76,194          84,154           3,561          47,808         (72,633)         (36,346)
Reserve/Offsets.......................................               0               0               0               0               0                0
Unassigned............................................             273             273               0             768            (273)             495
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total.....................................         601,681         625,975          22,958         279,511        (578,723)        (346,464)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transportation does not include mass transit BA.


  COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LEVELS SET FORTH IN SEC. 251(c) OF THE BALANCED BUDGET & EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985
                                                                  [Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Defense \1\           Nondefense \1\          General purpose        Highway category      Mass transit category
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      BA           O          BA           O          BA           O          BA           O          BA           O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Caps \2\..............       (\3\)       (\3\)       (\3\)       (\3\)     541,095     547,279           0      26,920       (\3\)       4,639
Current Level...................           0      99,470      22,958     156,530      22,958     256,000           0      18,968           0       4,543
    Difference (Current Level--        (\3\)       (\3\)       (\3\)       (\3\)    -518,137    -291,279       (\3\)      -7,952       (\3\)         -96
     Caps)......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Defense and nondefense categories are advisory rather than statutory.
\2\ Established by OMB Budget Enforcement Act Preview Report.
\3\ Not applicable.


                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report shows the effects of 
     Congressional action on the fiscal year 2001 budget and is 
     current through June 15, 2000. This report is submitted under 
     section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act, as amended.

       The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues 
     are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of 
     H. Con. Res. 290, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
     Fiscal Year 2001. The budget resolution figures incorporate 
     revisions submitted by the Committee on the Budget to the 
     House to reflect funding for emergency requirements, 
     disability reviews, and adoption assistance. These revisions 
     are required by section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
     as amended. This is my first letter for fiscal year 2001.

       Since the beginning of the second session of the 106th 
     Congress, the Congress has cleared and the President has 
     signed an act to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (P.L. 106-
     17), the Omnibus Parks Technical Corrections Act of 1999 
     (P.L. 106-176), the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
     Reform Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 106-181), the Civil 
     Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-185), and the 
     Trade and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-200). In 
     addition, the Congress cleared for the President's signature 
     the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 2559).

           Sincerely,
                                                Robert A. Sunshine
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

       Enclosure.

                         FISCAL YEAR 2001 HOUSE CURRENT LEVEL REPORT AS OF JUNE 15, 2000
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget
                                                    (authority)       Outlays        Revenues         Surplus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted in previous sessions:
    Revenues....................................               0               0       1,514,800  ..............
    Permanents and other spending legislation...         961,064         916,715               0  ..............
    Appropriation legislation \1\...............               0         266,010               0  ..............
    Offsetting receipts.........................        -297,807        -297,807               0  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, previously enacted.................         663,257         884,918       1,514,800            n.a.
                                                 ===============================================================
Enacted this session:An act to amend the Food                  1               1               0  ..............
 Stamp Act of 1977 (P.L. 106-171)
    Omnibus Parks Technical Corrections Act of                 8               6               0  ..............
     1999 (P.L. 106-176)........................
    Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment & Reform           3,200               0              -2  ..............
     Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 106-181)....
    Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000               -114             -75            -115  ..............
     (P.L. 106-185).............................
    Trade and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-             -47             -47            -442  ..............
     200).......................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, enacted this session...............           3,048            -115            -559            n.a.
                                                 ===============================================================
Cleared pending signature:
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000               3,060           2,165               0            n.a.
     (H.R. 2559)................................
Entitlements and Mandatories:
    Budget resolution baseline estimates of              283,602         262,778               0            n.a.
     appropriated entitlements and other
     mandatory programs not yet enacted.........
Total Current Level \1\.........................         952,967       1,149,381       1,514,241         364,860
Total Budget Resolution.........................       1,529,886       1,495,196       1,503,200           8,004
    Current Level Over Budget Resolution........               0               0          11,041         356,856
    Current Level Under Budget Resolution.......        -576,919        -345,815               0               0
Memorandum:
    Revenues, 2001-2005:
        House Current Level.....................               0               0       8,169,171            n.a.
        House Budget Resolution.................               0               0       8,022,400            n.a.
          Current Level Over Budget Resolution..               0               0         146,771            n.a.
    2001 Advances:
        FY 2002 House Current Level.............               0               0               0            n.a.
        FY 2001 House Budget Resolution.........               0               0          23,500            n.a.
        Current Level Under Budget Resolution...               0               0         -23,500            n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act in the House, the budget resolution
  does not include budget authority or outlays for Social Security administrative expenses. As a result, current
  level excludes these items.
 

[[Page 12637]]

 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Notes.--P.L.=Public Law; n.a.=not applicable.

                            OPPOSE H.R. 4717

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Values Action Team, I rise 
to bring to the Members' attention the strong opposition of many of the 
outside pro-family groups to the Archer-Houghton disclosure bill, H.R. 
4717.
  Since this bill has been broadened to include, not only 527s, but now 
501(c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, (c)(6)s, and it is being marketed as a disclosure 
bill, the provision would result in such burdensome regulations that 
many of these organizations feel they would be out of business as far 
as issue advocacy and representing their constituencies in lobbying.
  I submit for the Record about 30 letters from 30 organizations, 
including the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Christian 
Coalition, National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, 
American Conservative Union, Traditional Values Coalition, U.S. 
Business and Industry Council, Citizens Against Government Waste, and 
many others, and trust that Members will take this into consideration.
  The letters are as follows:
                                                 National Right To


                                         Life Committee, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.
       Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to express the 
     strong objections of the National Right to Life Committee 
     (NRLC) to the punitive and unconstitutional legislation 
     approved yesterday by the Ways & Means Committee, which is 
     expected to come before the full House during the week of 
     June 26.
       NRLC, Inc. and its state affiliates are 501(c)(4) 
     corporations. These organizations have non-profit status 
     simply because they exist not to make a profit but to promote 
     a cause--the protection of innocent human life. Contributions 
     to 501(c)(4) corporations are not tax-deductible.
       HR 4717 is being marketed as merely requiring 
     ``disclosure'' by organizations, including 501(c)(4) 
     corporations, that engage in so-called ``political 
     activities.'' But in fact it would impose extremely 
     burdensome regulations on the day-to-day advocacy and 
     grassroots lobbying activities of many long-established and 
     respectable membership organizations, including NRLC and 
     NRLC's state affiliates. The bill would required groups such 
     as NRLC and NRLC affiliates to file reports with the IRS 
     giving a ``detailed description,'' including ``the purpose 
     and intended results,'' of communications to our members or 
     to members of the public merely because those communications 
     mention the name of a member of Congress, or Vice-president 
     Gore or some other ``candidate.'' (Under current federal law, 
     the term ``candidate'' includes every member of Congress who 
     has not announced his retirement, including each senator 
     throughout his six-year term.)
       These requirements are triggered by an expenditure of as 
     little as $1,000 on any such activity. This requirement would 
     apply, among other things, to routine grassroots alerts 
     regarding upcoming legislative events--whether disseminated 
     by mail, telephone, paid ads, e-mail alert systems, or 
     websites.
       Incredibly, these requirements would apply even to 
     communications to our own members that mention the name of a 
     member of Congress or other federal politician, if the 
     communication ``urges such members to communicate with 
     another person or to take an action as a result of such 
     communication.'' Thus, an ``action alert'' in the National 
     Right to Life News, urging our members to write ``letters to 
     the editor'' of local newspapers expressing support for the 
     ``Hyde Amendment,'' would need to be reported to the IRS. 
     Indeed, if a group spent $1,000 on a mailing to urge its 
     members to ``pray for the defeat of the Kennedy bill,'' that 
     group would be required to give a ``detailed description'' of 
     that activity to the IRS, including a listing of ``the 
     candidates intended to be affected.''
       In addition, the bill would unconstitutionally require that 
     our organizations report to the government--and place in the 
     public domain--the name, address, occupation, and employer of 
     any person who contributes $1,000 per year or more to our 
     organizations. Stripping our best donors of privacy in this 
     manner will expose them to harassment and exploitation by 
     fly-by-night telemarketers and other outside parties. It 
     would also expose them to retribution from employers or pro-
     abortion activists who do not agree with their support for 
     the right-to-life cause. This is not a hypothetical concern--
     pro-abortion activists have in the past used boycotts and 
     other means to ``punish'' businessmen and others who support 
     pro-life causes.
       Respectfully, we do not believe that the Constitution 
     permits our elected representatives to demand that groups of 
     citizens, organized to promote a cause, must report to 
     government bureaucrats every instance in which they dare to 
     utter the name of a federal politician to multiple listeners. 
     The Constitution protects the rights of our members to 
     associate, to express opinions on the actions of federal 
     politicians, and to urge other citizens to communicate with 
     their elected representatives, without being subjected to 
     intrusive oversight by politicians, political appointees, or 
     federal bureaucrats.
       Finally, it is worth noting that the burdens imposed by HR 
     4417 would not apply to the largest organizational sponsor of 
     pro-abortion lobbying and issue advocacy--the Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). That is because PPFA 
     is 501(c)(3) organization, which are not covered by the bill. 
     Private donors to PPFA obtain tax deductions, unlike donors 
     to NRLC. Yet, because PPFA files under the special 501(h) 
     category, PPFA can and does engage extensively in mass 
     communications that mention the names of members of Congress 
     (issue advocacy), including grassroots lobbying campaigns 
     aimed at Congress. Inclusion of 501(h) organizations would 
     not make the bill constitutional, but the exclusion of PPFA 
     makes the bill even more outrageous.
       We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation. We intend 
     to inform our members and donors regarding how members of the 
     House vote regarding protection of their rights to privacy 
     and their ability to collectively petition their elected 
     representatives.
           Sincerely,
     David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
       Executive Director.
     Douglas Johnson,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                          Christian Coalition,

                                    Chesapeake, VA, June 26, 2000.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to you about one of 
     the most important votes for the Christian Coalition 
     membership that you may ever cast in your career--that is the 
     upcoming vote on campaign finance reform. The Christian 
     Coalition strongly opposes H.R. 4717, the ``Full and Fair 
     Political Activity Disclosure Act,'' because of the impact it 
     would have on the Christian Coalition as an organization by 
     forcing us to publicly disclose the names of our donors, and 
     because of its intrusive and burdensome reporting 
     requirements. H.R. 4717 is a blatant violation of our 
     constitutional right to free speech and to freedom of 
     association. Be assured that the Christian Coalition intends 
     to publicize to our supporters in the clearest possible terms 
     how you vote on H.R. 4717, and the impact of your vote on the 
     Christian Coalition.
       H.R. 4717 would require the Christian Coalition and many of 
     our affiliates to publicly report the name, address, 
     occupation, and employer of any contributors who contribute 
     an aggregate of $1,000 or more during the reporting period. 
     Freedom of speech and freedom of association are two of the 
     most fundamental rights acknowledged by the U.S. 
     Constitution. The freedom to donate money to support 
     controversial or unpopular views is crucial to both these 
     rights. Activists committed to social change will never be 
     able to lead the rest of us to a better life without the 
     financial support of generous souls willing to sacrifice 
     their hard earned capital as an investment for the future. 
     H.R. 4717 would punish individuals who support political 
     action on controversial issues. Opposition activists could 
     target contributors for harassment, both legal and illegal. 
     What would have happened to the Civil Rights movement of the 
     1950's and 60's if the KKK had access to the donor lists for 
     the NAACP and the ACLU? Americans must never be forced to 
     risk their jobs, their homes, their friends, or their lives 
     merely because they choose to contribute money for causes 
     that others may not yet understand.
       The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the 
     public disclosure of donors has ``the practical effect of 
     discouraging the exercise of constitutionally protected 
     political rights,'' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 65 (1976), 
     since ``revelation of the identity of rank-and-file members 
     expose[s] these members to economic reprisal, loss of 
     employment, threat of physical coercion and other 
     manifestations of public hostility.'' NAACP v. Alabama, 357 
     U.S. 449, 462 (1958). In light of the controversial issues 
     that the Christian Coalition has been willing to stand and 
     fight for over the years, the public reporting of our donor 
     base cold cripple the Christian Coalition as our donations 
     dry up.
       H.R. 4717 would also require the Christian Coalition to 
     file quarterly reports of any communications over $1,000 that 
     involve the name or likeness of a candidate, or which meet 
     the IRS definition of political intervention--an extremely 
     vague and nebulous definition. But the bill goes even further 
     and goes so far as to force disclosure of the money spent for 
     internal communications from an organization's officers to 
     its general membership regarding elected officials if the 
     communication calls for the membership to take action. Even 
     legislative alerts and

[[Page 12638]]

     other communications to our membership regarding pending 
     legislation would need to be reported to the government if 
     they exceed the $1,000 threshold. We reject the notion that 
     Congress can require grassroots citizen organizations like 
     the Christian Coalition that are organized to promote a 
     cause, to constantly report to the government our internal 
     communications with our membership regarding pending 
     legislation would need to be reported to the government if 
     they exceed the $1,000 threshold. We reject the notion that 
     Congress can require grassroots citizen organizations like 
     the Christian Coalition that are organized to promote a 
     cause, to constantly report to the government our internal 
     communications with our membership, or our communications 
     with the public merely because they mention the name of a 
     candidate, and be subjected to intrusive oversight by 
     political appointees and other government employees.
       It is particularly offensive that H.R. 4717 applies to 
     groups like the Christian Coalition, but not to the Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America, a 501c3 organization that 
     is the largest organizational sponsor of pro-abortion 
     lobbying.
       On behalf of the members and supporters of the Christian 
     Coalition, I urge you to stand up for the rights of our 
     membership and vote against H.R. 4717.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Susan T. Muskett,
                                    Director, Legislative Affairs.


                                                  Eagle Forum,

                                                    June 23, 2000.
       Dear Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Armey, and Majority 
     Whip DeLay: On behalf of Eagle Forum members nationwide, I am 
     writing in strong opposition to the Full and Fair Political 
     Activity Disclosure Act of 2000 (H.R. 4717), which was 
     approved by the Ways and Means Committee yesterday. This bill 
     gives the federal government the authority to police the 
     activities of section 527, 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and section 
     501(c)(6) organizations.
       Eagle Forum functions as a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt 
     organization and does not receive tax-deductible 
     contributions. While H.R. 4717 is being marketed as a 
     ``disclosure'' bill, implementing its provisions would result 
     in burdensome paperwork that would take a heavy toll on our 
     day-to-day activities and grassroots lobbying. Once Eagle 
     Forum spends $10,000 on legislative activities that merely 
     mention the name of a Member of Congress or a candidate, we 
     would be required to file reports with the Internal Revenue 
     Service giving a ``detailed description . . . including the 
     purpose and intended results'' of our communications. We do 
     not want the IRS knocking on our door every time we send an 
     alert, conduct a postcard campaign, or generate phone calls.
       It is Eagle Forum's policy to respect and protect the 
     privacy of our members. Therefore, we do not rent or share 
     our lists. However, H.R. 4717 would force us to report to the 
     government, thereby placing in the public domain, the name, 
     address, occupation, and employer of any person who 
     contributes $1,000 or more in one year to Eagle Forum. This 
     requirement would force our members into the public sphere 
     despite our long-standing policy of protecting our members' 
     privacy, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment, see 
     NAACP v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
       Finally, our system of government relies on citizen 
     participation. The U.S. Constitution does not give federal 
     government the authority to police or force organizations, 
     such as Eagle Forum, to report to government bureaucrats. 
     Freedom of speech and association are fundamental principles. 
     Yet, H.R. 4717 replaces these freedoms with intrusive 
     government oversight.
       I urge you to pull the bill from the legislative calendar. 
     If this bill in fact reaches the floor, I encourage you to 
     oppose it. Eagle Forum members in your district will be 
     waiting to hear our report on how you voted.
           Faithfully,
                                                 Phyllis Schlafly,
     President.
                                  ____



                                      Family Research Council,

                                     Washington DC, June 26, 2000.
     Re: HR 4717, ``Exempt Organization Political Activity 
         Disclosure Act of 2000''
       Dear Member of Congress: The Family Research Council urges 
     you in the strongest possible terms to vote ``NO'' on the 
     ``Exempt Organization Political Activity Disclosure Act of 
     2000'' (H.R. 4417) and the Doggett substitute. These measures 
     would unconstitutionally restrict First Amendment freedom of 
     speech rights and permit the government to intrude 
     egregiously on the privacy of millions of Americans. The 
     measures also would impose an undue burden on the 
     constitutional right to petition government for the 
     grievances and unnecessarily limit freedom of association.
       Requiring non-profit organizations to report all 
     contributions in excess of $1,000 would needlessly expose 
     donors to possible harassment, reprisals and public abuse. 
     The U.S. Supreme Court already has ruled that non-profit 
     donor confidentiality is constitutional and an important 
     privacy protection for those who wish to exercise their 
     constitutional rights by expressing their opinions on matters 
     of public policy. Two weeks ago, a federal appeals court 
     struck down a Vermont law that sought to force disclosure by 
     groups that sponsor issue ads. ``The constitutional defects 
     are particularly serious because of their impact on anonymous 
     communications, which have played a central role in the 
     development of free expression and democratic governance,'' 
     the appeals court said.
       Information regarding donors, moreover, is proprietary. 
     Making such information public through government agencies 
     would allow competing groups, unscrupulous hucksters or other 
     outside parties to target an organization's supporters.
       Extending donor reporting requirements to non-profit 
     organizations is unneeded. Such organizations already are 
     ``explicitly barred from having a primarily electoral 
     purpose.'' H.R. 4417 has nothing to do with ``campaign 
     finance.'' It would, however, subject non-profit 
     organizations to unwarranted government scrutiny when they 
     are engaged in good faith, lawful public policy advocacy. 
     This requirement would have a profound chilling effect on 
     public policy debate and almost all grassroots issues 
     advocacy.
       H.R. 4417 would inappropriately cede too much power to the 
     IRS to scrutinize the daily activities of issue advocacy 
     groups. The bill would not only require the reporting of 
     gifts and contributions to non-profit organizations, but 
     would compel them to disclose the ``purpose and intended 
     results'' of such donations. This would drive the IRS into 
     the mind-reading business. The potential here for abuses of 
     power or manipulation of the tax-collecting agency for 
     political purposes is painfully self-evident. H.R. 4417 
     effectively would empower the government to control and limit 
     public debate on policy issues or pending legislation. This 
     would be fatal to participatory democracy.
       Our nation's founders neither intended nor imagined that 
     one day American citizens would be required to subject 
     themselves to the dictates of the government, federal 
     bureaucrats or political appointees, or be required to obtain 
     permission simply to exercise their unalienable rights. The 
     Constitution protects the rights of the American people to 
     freely associate, to petition their elected representatives 
     and express their opinions individually or collectively 
     without intrusive oversight by the government.
       The Family Research Council strongly urges you to oppose 
     the misguided provisions contained in H.R. 4417 and the 
     Doggett substitute.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles A. Donovan,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                  Concerned Women for America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2000.
     Hon. Joe Pitts,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pitts, Concerned Women for America 
     (CWA) is writing to express our firm opposition to the 
     Houghton 527 amendment. This amendment threatens the future 
     of ``issue advocacy'' for many non-profit public policy 
     groups.
       This measure is over-broad and attempts to solve a 
     perceived problem with one type of organization by targeting 
     even 501(c)(4) non-profit educational groups. Reporting their 
     donors is wholly unwarranted and a violation of the donor's 
     right of association.
       Furthermore, the IRS definition of ``political activity'' 
     is vague and may change in the future. Organizations which in 
     good faith attempt law-abiding efforts to further their 
     public policy agenda could be held hostage by the IRS and 
     this legislation.
       This measure has been hastily drawn and it shows. 
     Therefore, the over 500,000 members of Concerned Women for 
     America urge the House of Representatives and House 
     leadership to oppose the Houghton 527 amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Beverly LaHaye,
     Chairman and Founder.
                                  ____

                                                    June 23, 2000.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert: A vote on a bill sponsored by 
     Representative Amo Houghton (R-NY) in regard to disclosure of 
     tax-exempt group's political activities is scheduled to take 
     place prior to the Congressional July 4th recess. This vote 
     should be postponed.
       The signers of this letter are gravely concerned that this 
     important issue is being treated with undue haste. Hasty, 
     ill-considered legislation may not only fail to address the 
     problem this legislation purports to solve, by may also 
     broadly impact all public policy organizations.
       The current version of the ``Exempt Organization Political 
     Activity Disclosure Act of 2000'' suffers from several 
     drafting problems. The legislation includes language which 
     would require the Internal Revenue Service to hire mind 
     readers to conduct audits by establishing an intent standard 
     (e.g. page 2, lines 12 & 13: ``The intended results for the 
     major categories of expenditures'').
       Exactly how the IRS will verify compliance with the 
     reporting requirements this legislation imposes on all law-
     abiding 501(c)(4) organizations also merits scrutiny. Will an 
     organization's entire computer membership file be turned over 
     to the IRS during an audit in order to allow the IRS 
     computers

[[Page 12639]]

     to search for undisclosed donors? The security of this 
     information, which is the lifeblood of any organization, may 
     well be compromised if accessed by persons opposed to the 
     organization's beliefs.
       This chilling effect of membership disclose on 
     Constitutionally-protected activity has been addressed by the 
     Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama 78 S. Ct. 1163 (1958): ``It 
     is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of 
     affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute 
     a(n) effective restraint on freedom of association.''
       Please postpone consideration of the ``Exempt Organization 
     Political Activity Disclosure Act of 2000'' until affected 
     organizations and concerned Members of Congress can properly 
     and fully evaluate the scope and impact of this legislation.
       (Titles and organizations of signers listed for 
     identification purposes only)
       Paul Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; 
     Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, Concerned Women for 
     America; David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; 
     Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America; Rev. 
     Lou Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition; Gordon 
     S. Jones, President, Association of Concerned Taxpayers; Joe 
     Glover, President, Family Policy Network; Ronald W. Pearson, 
     Executive Director, Conservative Victory Fund Kent Snyder, 
     Executive Director, Liberty Study Committee; Joe Douglas, 
     Director, Redwood Institute; Dr. Emillio-Adolpho Rivera, 
     Popular Republican Party of Cuba; Tom DeWeese, President, 
     American Policy Center; David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., Executive 
     Director, National Right to Life Committee; Tom Schatz, 
     President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; 
     Kevin L. Kearns, President, U.S. Business and Industry 
     Council; Linda Chavez, President, One Nation Indivisible; 
     Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director, Susan B. Anthony List; 
     C. Preston Noell, III, President, Traditio, Family, Property, 
     Inc.; Jim Boulet, Jr., Exeutive Director, English First; 
     Laszlo Pasztor, Honorary Chairman, National Republican 
     Heritage Groups Council; Juraj Slavik, Washington 
     Representative, Czechoslovak National Council of America; 
     Jack Clayton, Washington Representative, Public Advocate; 
     Joan Hueter, American Council for Immigration Reform; Wes 
     Vernon, Writer & Broadcaster.

                          ____________________